Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The Soviet Union's strategy that precipitated the US exit from Vietnam holds lessons for Ukraine. </li><li>The Soviets and Chinese provided Vietnam with weapons that negated the US's airpower advantage.</li></ul>Ukraine can defeat Russia if it and its Western backers learn from America's failure in the Vietnam War, a Ukrainian security expert argues.That war has parallels with Ukraine's fight today. The North Vietnamese thwarted vastly superior American firepower with strategies backed by massive Soviet and Chinese military aid. They are a playbook for how Ukraine might compel Russia to <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-advisors-peace-plans-ukraine-demilitarized-zone-no-aid-russia-2024-11">make peace</a> within two years, argues Oleksandr Danylyuk, a former top Ukrainian security official and now an analyst for the Royal United Services Institute, a British think tank."The example of the Vietnam War is important primarily because victory for Ukraine is possible only if Russian troops are withdrawn from its territory," Danylyuk said in an <a target="_blank" href="https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/rusi-newsbrief/lessons-vietnam-ukrainian-victory-plan">essay</a> for RUSI. "The creation of conditions under which Russia cannot and is not willing to continue the war, and therefore is forced to leave Ukraine, should be the strategic goal of the pro-Ukrainian coalition."Danylyuk attributes America's failure in Vietnam to a "protracted multi-dimensional strategy by the Soviet Union, on whose help it was completely dependent." The Soviet Union and China supplied Hanoi with ample weapons and other aid, including anti-aircraft weapons to neutralize the US's airpower advantages. The Soviets sent 15,000 military specialists such as air defense experts, while <a target="_blank" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1989/05/17/china-admits-combat-in-vietnam-war/6b9cb8a4-4d18-48bf-80d2-bea80f64057c/">China dispatched 320,000 personnel</a> who mostly handled combat support tasks such as logistics, freeing up North Vietnamese manpower for combat duties.Meanwhile, the burden of the war US economy became intolerable, as the Johnson administration refused to raise taxes or cut social programs, leading to deficit spending and inflation. <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/largest-marches-us-history-2017-1">Anti-war protests</a> — some incited and financed by the Communist bloc — and war-weariness among the general public led the Nixon administration to withdraw American troops. By the time North Vietnamese tanks entered Saigon in 1975, the US was reeling from recession and high oil prices, with no more appetite to aid South Vietnam.Danylyuk admits that <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-facing-powerful-russian-offensive-in-east-grim-outlook-2024-11">Ukraine's situation</a> differs from North Vietnam's in many aspects. "It does not need the presence of allied troops to repel aggression, is not a technologically backward country, and has proven that it cannot only use, but also produce the most modern types of weaponry."Yet, ironically, Danylyuk believes that the keys to defeating Russia's invasion now can be found in the Soviet Union's multi-pronged strategy in Vietnam.<div type="image" title="US Marines wade through a rice paddy in an assault on Viet Cong positions in 1965." height="1383" width="2000" msid="115358659" hostid="261" sizebytes="304174"></div>The first prong of this strategy would be to "stabilize the frontline and to render any successful offensive actions by Russian troops impossible." This would require stopping the Russian <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-turns-tables-russia-drops-glide-bombs-on-its-territory-2024-8">glide bomb</a> attacks that are devastating Ukrainian frontline positions. Rather than trying to stop the bombs themselves, Danylyuk suggests the West provide more fighters armed with long-range air-to-air missiles — in particular <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/why-ukraine-needs-gripen-fighter-jets-long-term-f-16s-2024-10">Sweden's Gripen jet</a> with Meteor missiles — to shoot down Russian aircraft before they can release glide bombs. His paper notes that the Soviets provided Vietnam 155 MiG fighters in three years alone.Or, if the West is willing to provide "several billion dollars," Ukraine can produce enough long-range <a target="_blank" href="https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/romania-and-ukraine-to-develop-neptune-missiles-1722693809.html">Neptune cruise missiles</a> to destroy the Russian airbases and aircraft from which the bombing runs are launched. These weapons would also force Russia to redeploy air defense systems, such as S-300 and <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-s-400-formidable-not-quite-up-to-the-hype-2024-5">S-400</a> anti-aircraft missiles, from Ukraine back to Russia. In addition, Ukraine should also try to kill as many Russian troops as possible to force the Kremlin into another mobilization likely to be deeply unpopular. "Accomplishing this task directly depends on Ukraine's ability to achieve fire parity on the contact line, which requires the West, in turn, to produce a sufficient amount of artillery ammunition," Danylyuk said.In 1965, when major US combat operations in Vietnam began, the majority of the American public <a target="_blank" href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/1334328/vietnam-war-us-public-opinion-mistake/">backed </a>US intervention. But a US commitment that swelled to 543,000 personnel by 1969, along with growing resentment over the draft and 58,000 American personnel killed, eroded that support.On the economic front, Danylyuk urges the West to bankrupt the Russian war effort by seeking to lower the price of oil, which provides much of Russia's revenues. He points to the collapse of the Soviet Union, caused in part by falling oil prices in the 1980s. This would require other nations to boost oil production to depress prices."It must be recognized that attempts to apply restrictions on the price of Russian oil alone have not worked, and without replacing Russia's share of the world market by increasing production elsewhere, the situation will remain favorable for Moscow," said Danylyuk. Indeed, Saudi Arabia and some of its OPEC allies plan to <a target="_blank" href="https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/How-Saudi-Oil-Policies-Could-Cripple-Russias-War-Effort.html">produce more oil</a> and cut prices.Psychologically, the West should tap into Russian <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/russians-resisting-crackdown-war-dissidents-paying-2024-3">anti-war sentiment</a> — heavily suppressed by Vladimir Putin's government, but still simmering. "The only explanation for the lack of a mass anti-war movement and large-scale protests is the absence of an organized and popular opposition in Russia," Danylyuk said. "Under such conditions, there is no alternative to providing organizational and financial support for such a movement from the outside."Danylyuk's plan is ambitious, to say the least. Compelling Russia to make peace on the battlefield seems unlikely at least in the short term, as Russian forces advance slowly, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-lost-1200-a-day-highest-since-war-began-intel-2024-5">painfully</a> but inexorably. Whether Saudi Arabia and other oil producers would choose to depress oil prices in the long term remains to be seen. Banking on the Russian public's anti-war sentiment is chancy, given the intense repression and propaganda of Putin's government.But the alternative is even worse, Danylyuk warns. Without a strategy to force Russia to <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/what-trump-picks-mean-for-ukraine-skepticism-time-pressure-2024-11">end the war</a>, the outcome will be to "exhaust Ukraine and the West and allow Russia to implement its own multidimensional plan to end support for Ukraine, according to which Kyiv would be added to the list of cities that have become symbols of the West's geopolitical defeats: Kabul and Saigon."Michael Peck is a defense writer whose work has appeared in Forbes, Defense News, Foreign Policy magazine, and other publications. He holds an MA in political science from Rutgers Univ. Follow him on <a target="_blank" href="https://www.twitter.com/@mipeck1">Twitter</a> and <a target="_blank" href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/mipeck/">LinkedIn</a>.

America's defeat in Vietnam offers a game plan for Ukrainian victory  

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The Onion, the satirical news site, bought Alex Jones's Infowars at an auction.</li><li>Jones had been found liable for defaming the Sandy Hook families and ordered to pay nearly $1.5 billion.</li></ul>Conspiracy theorist <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/infowars-sandy-hook-ex-staffers-describe-alex-jones-unhinged-workplace-2023-6">Alex Jones's Infowars</a> has a new home — and it's not the one he wanted.The Onion, the satirical publication, <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://theonion.com/heres-why-i-decided-to-buy-infowars/">announced on Thursday</a> that it had purchased the disgraced far-right commentator's company at auction. The terms of the sale weren't disclosed.The purchase of Infowars has the support of the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre, and a revamped version of the site will feature advertisements from Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit that aims to end gun violence, according to a statement from the gun-safety group.Jones had been found liable for <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/alex-jones-conspiracy-theorist-sandy-hook-massacre-hoax-allegations-2022-7">defaming the Sandy Hook families in four lawsuits</a> after he spent years spreading lies that the deadly 2012 school shooting was a hoax. Many of those lies were touted on his Infowars platform, which was put up for auction this year as part of an agreement that Jones would liquidate his assets to help pay a fraction of the nearly <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/alex-jones-must-pay-473-million-punitive-damages-sandy-hook-2022-11">$1.5 billion he was ordered to pay the Sandy Hook victims' families</a>.<a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/alex-jones-infowars-free-speech-systems-auction-sandy-hook-bankruptcy-2024-9">Jones had previously expressed his hopes</a> that one of his "patriot" allies would buy his company so that he could continue to broadcast on the platform.

The Onion buys Alex Jones's Infowars — and that's not a joke

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The US has sent Ukraine and Israel billions of dollars worth of ammunition in recent years.</li><li>The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East show the US how much ammo it will need for its next big war.</li></ul>From Ukraine to Israel, the US has sent billions of dollars worth of ammunition to its key partners as they fight two grinding — and vastly different — conflicts that appear to show no signs of slowing down.These two wars, and the US Navy's demanding counter-Houthi mission in the Red Sea, offer the American military a taste of what would be needed in a high-end fight: a lot of firepower."The volume of weaponry — the number of missiles and other systems that are going to be required to deal with a high-end conflict — are just much more than we had planned," Bradley Martin, a retired Navy surface warfare captain, told Business Insider."We also lack the industrial base to rapidly expand," he added. "So it's really important that we start addressing those sets of issues quickly."<h2 id="29d6004e-34b5-4e94-aaf1-4e939cf91eaf">Billions of dollars in ammo fired overseas</h2>The Biden administration has outfitted Ukraine with over $60 billion in security assistance since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022.<div type="image" title="A Ukrainian soldier installs a fuse for a 155 mm artillery shell, which has been a key munition during the war." height="5760" width="8640" msid="115116354" hostid="261" sizebytes="3631720"></div>According to<a target="_blank" class="" href="https://media.defense.gov/2024/Nov/01/2003576673/-1/-1/1/UKRAINE-FACT-SHEET-1-NOVEMBER.PDF"> publicly available information</a> provided by the Pentagon, this lethal aid includes tens of thousands of rockets and missiles, hundreds of thousands of mortar rounds, and millions of artillery shells and bullets. 155mm shells have been in particularly high demand, and stockpiles have been strained.Beyond the ammunition, the US has also sent Ukraine a significant amount of armored vehicles, air-defense systems, drones, anti-tank weapons, small arms, and more.The Biden administration has been far less transparent about the security assistance it has sent to Israel, but the Costs of War Project, a research initiative at Brown University, found last month that the US had approved <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-spent-over-22-billion-arming-israel-battling-houthis-2024-10">at least $18 billion</a> in security assistance to Israel since war broke out after Hamas' October 7, 2023 massacre.Weapons deliveries since then have consisted of heaping amounts of ammunition, including thousands of anti-tank missiles, tens of thousands of artillery shells and cannon ammunition, as well as tens of thousands of air-dropped bombs.Meanwhile, the US military has spent the past year <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft-carrier-eisenhower-planes-in-air-constantly-houthis-2024-2">actively engaged in combat operations</a> against the Houthis, the Iran-backed rebels in Yemen that have been using missiles and drones to <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/inside-us-navy-aircraft-carrier-tactics-shift-houthi-missiles-drones-2024-2">attack merchant shipping lanes</a> in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.<div type="image" title="An F/A-18 Super Hornet lands on the flight deck of the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in April." height="3712" width="5568" msid="115116360" hostid="261" sizebytes="397940"></div>US warships and aircraft have <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-carrier-strike-group-fired-nearly-800-munitions-houthi-fight-2024-7">fired hundreds of munitions</a> to shoot down Houthi threats and strike the rebels in Yemen, including a wide range of land-attack missiles, surface-to-air missiles, air-to-air missiles, and air-to-surface weapons.The Navy also fired interceptor missiles to defend Israel from Iranian attacks in April and October. These two instances, along with the counter-Houthi operations, have seen the US <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-weapons-expenditure-cost-middle-east-conflicts-2024-10">expend nearly $2 billion</a> worth of munitions.On the low end, the US has contributed some $80 billion in weaponry — including the transfer or expenditure of a significant amount of munitions — to support the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, which aren't showing any sign of winding down.<h2 id="f33dbabf-f05c-4841-b64b-46c880e766cf">Production woes — and improvements</h2>Former US military officers who have taken part in war-gaming exercises for various research institutions say the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East underscore the high munitions expenditure needed in a major fight."We have seen the munitions demands of a major war, which are not a surprise — everybody knows that protracted great-power wars use a lot of munitions," Mark Cancian, a defense expert and retired US Marine Corps colonel, told BI.<div type="image" title="The destroyer USS Bulkeley fires an interceptor to defend Israel from an Iranian ballistic missile attack on Tuesday." height="1566" width="2880" msid="115116356" hostid="261" sizebytes="54094"></div>"We never really thought we would be in such a position, and these events have shown us what the demands could be, combined with a strategy that now recognizes we could end up in a great-power conflict that might go on for a long time," said Cancian, now a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.Martin, the former Navy captain, said that backfilling the US stockpiles of ammunition that have been transferred to partners or fired overseas is important, but it's crucial that the defense-industrial base actually has the capacity to manufacture new munitions when the demand spikes."What we are seeing from the real-world examples is that munitions expenditure will be very high," said Martin, now a senior policy researcher at RAND. "If there was ever a wake-up call, it would be the campaigns in Ukraine and in the Middle East."Indeed, a US Army official previously told BI that "the Army is <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-army-rethinking-how-much-ammunition-it-needs-ukraine-war-2023-11">looking very closely at the war in Ukraine</a>" and "investing to better prepare for potential conflict." But that preparation is a substantial undertaking.One kind of weapon that would be needed in great numbers for a potential conflict with an adversary like China, the Pentagon's "pacing challenge," is <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-missile-new-combat-got-another-workout-against-iran-2024-10">air-defense interceptors</a>, particularly those from the Standard Missile family.<div type="image" title="The US has sent three Patriot batteries to Ukraine, along with associated interceptor missiles." height="3278" width="4579" msid="115116362" hostid="261" sizebytes="617300"></div>A US-China war could largely be fought in the maritime domain. Given <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/irans-missile-strike-israel-just-fraction-what-china-could-do-2024-10">Beijing's formidable arsenal</a> of anti-ship missiles, Navy vessels would need to be well-armed with interceptors to <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-warships-used-weapon-combat-first-destroy-iranian-missiles-2024-4">take down these threats</a> and defend American assets in the Pacific.Officials and analysts have expressed concern over stockpiles of these interceptors, especially <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-burns-through-key-missiles-needed-for-china-fight-2024-10">given their use</a> during high-tempo Middle East operations. They argue that the US <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-more-missiles-recently-got-first-kill-pacific-threats-2024-5">needs more key interceptors</a> for future conflicts. However, these munitions come with a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-top-interceptor-missile-heavy-price-tag-low-procurement-2024-10">hefty price tag,</a> and production has dropped.Land-based air defenses have also proven their worth in major conflicts in recent few years. The US has transferred <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-army-instructors-say-ukrainians-amazing-mastering-patriot-missile-system-2024-3">Patriot batteries</a> and their associated interceptor missiles to Ukraine, where they have gotten a workout against Russian missiles. This advanced system was also used to <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-forces-destroyed-iran-missiles-drones-massive-air-defense-battle-2024-4">defend Israel from Iranian missiles</a> in April. Lockheed Martin is <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.defensenews.com/land/2024/04/09/how-companies-plan-to-ramp-up-production-of-patriot-missiles/">boosting</a> PAC-3 interceptor production, but there are questions as to whether it is sufficient.Beyond air defense, air-launched <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-air-force-weapon-sinks-warships-cant-fight-china-navy-2024-8">standoff weapons</a> like the AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) and AGM-158B Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) would also be critical for US forces in a major conflict, especially against China.The Tomahawk Land-Attack Cruise Misisle, a premier Navy long-range strike asset that the military has been relying on heavily would also be needed in significant quantities for a high-end conflict, which, given <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/americas-rivals-pressure-same-time-russia-china-iran-north-korea-2024-9">stronger ties between US foes</a>, may not be a fair fight.

The US needs ammunition for its next big war — a lot of it

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The Pentagon is changing up the US military's force posture in and around the Middle East.</li><li>Focused on checking Iran and its proxies, it is deploying additional warships and fighter jets.</li></ul>The US is deploying additional warships able to shoot down ballistic missiles to the Middle East and nearby waters, a Pentagon spokesperson said Friday, as the region braces for a potential attack on Israel by Iran and its proxies.Sabrina Singh, the deputy press secretary, said the Pentagon is changing up the <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3860557/deputy-pentagon-press-secretary-sabrina-singh-statement-on-force-posture-in-the/">US military's force posture</a> "to mitigate the possibility of regional escalation by Iran or Iran's partners and proxies."Earlier this week, Israel killed a top <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-tried-killing-top-hezbollah-commander-beirut-with-us-bounty-2024-7">Hezbollah commander in Lebanon</a>, and hours later, it became the leading suspect in the assassination of <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ismail-haniyeh-top-hamas-leader-killed-in-iran-2024-7">Hamas' political chief in Iran</a>.The <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-scored-major-intelligence-wins-killing-hamas-hezbollah-leaders-2024-8">stunning, back-to-back killings</a> sparked fears of retaliation from Iran and its proxies, which could send the region spiraling into even more conflict. Both Tehran and Hamas have vowed revenge.Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin "has ordered adjustments to US military posture designed to improve US force protection, to increase support for the defense of Israel, and to ensure the United States is prepared to respond to various contingencies," Singh said.Austin ordered the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group, which was in the Pacific a few days ago, to replace the USS Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group, which is deployed to the Middle East.He also ordered additional destroyers and cruisers capable of intercepting ballistic missiles to move into waters in the Middle East and nearby within the US European Command and US Central Command areas of responsibility.Additionally, Singh said the Pentagon is "taking steps to increase our readiness to deploy additional land-based ballistic missile defense." Austin also ordered the deployment of an additional fighter squadron to the region to provide more air support.The US already has a wide range of existing capabilities in the region, including the USS Wasp Amphibious Ready Group in the Eastern Mediterranean. It has also had <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-carrier-strike-group-fired-nearly-800-munitions-houthi-fight-2024-7">warships operating off the coast of Yemen</a>.US warships shot down <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-warships-used-weapon-combat-first-destroy-iranian-missiles-2024-4">Iranian ballistic missiles</a> during Tehran's massive attack on Israel in April. American fighter jets also <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-forces-destroyed-iran-missiles-drones-massive-air-defense-battle-2024-4">destroyed dozens of drones</a>. Tehran and its proxies could launch a similar strike package with hundreds of projectiles in retaliation for recent acknowledged and suspected Israeli actions."As we have demonstrated since October and again in April, the United States' global defense is dynamic," Singh said, adding that the "Department of Defense retains the capability to deploy on short notice to meet evolving national security threats."

The US is deploying more warships able to shoot down ballistic missiles to keep Iran and its friends in check 

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Russia is holding much of its airpower and more advanced jets in reserve, experts say.</li><li>One concern for the Russians is Ukraine's air defenses, which have shot down a number of Russian aircraft.</li></ul>Russia has kept much of its airpower and some of its most advanced aircraft out of the war in Ukraine. Experts say doing so signals Russian worries about Ukraine's air defense game but also considerations beyond this fight to one with NATO.John Baum, an air power expert at the Mitchell Institute and retired US Air Force lieutenant colonel, told Business Insider that the Russians "could bring more advanced aircraft into the fight and they simply haven't done that yet."Some Kremlin claims aside, there is no evidence Russia has used its Su-57s over Ukraine itself, despite the aircraft, at least on paper, being Russia's most advanced plane and supposedly built for a war in which the airspace is heavily contested.The jet is Russia's first attempt at a fifth-generation fighter, <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-feared-losing-su-57-combat-ukraine-hit-one-anyway-2024-6">touted by Russian media as a match</a> for American fifth-generation stealth fighters like the F-22 and F-35. However, given limitations in the design, such as a lack of all-aspect stealth, analysts question whether the plane's actual capabilities fit that description. The aircraft also suffers from some lingering technical issues.In January, the UK Ministry of Defense said the Su-57 had been limited to launching missiles from Russian territory, mirroring how the Russians have used many of its other aircraft in this war.Unlike the ground troops it throws into the meat grinder, Russia tends to use its air assets in ways that minimize risk by keeping them back from Ukraine's defenses.<div type="image" title="Su-35" height="768" width="1024" msid="112165371" hostid="261" sizebytes="75398"></div>"Russia is husbanding a lot of its air assets. So, a lot of the Russian Air Force, you are not even seeing over Ukraine," Andrew Curtis, an independent defense researcher who spent 35 years as a UK Royal Air Force officer, said. And he said Russia is using Su-57s in ways that there is "no risk."Curtis said he thinks "the reason for that is simply that it is keen to make sure that it retains a credible modern air force for any future operations that it might want to undertake.""And that in itself is quite significant," he said, "because it shows that at least somebody in the Kremlin is thinking beyond just Ukraine."<h2 id="1b47f120-c1d2-41e0-bb06-72675ec5cc2d">Russia is holding back its air forces with NATO in mind</h2>Michael Clarke, a Russia and Ukraine expert and a UK national security advisor, said Russia is making some sacrifices in Ukraine for a possible future conflict. "If the Russians were throwing everything they had against Ukraine, they would probably be in a stronger, better position than they are now," he said.He added that Russia's air force is holding back jets "because if it devoted all to Ukraine, it feels it will have nothing left if it comes to some sort of conflict with NATO."The top US commander in Europe, Gen. Christopher Cavoli, <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.airandspaceforces.com/russian-air-force-has-only-lost-10-percent-of-fleet-in-ukraine-us-officials-say/">told</a> Congress in April that Russia has only lost about 10 percent of its fleet in Ukraine, indicating it has a lot left in its airpower arsenal.NATO members are worried about the future threat from Russia, with many <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-better-positioned-attack-europe-before-ukraine-war-nato-lithuania-2024-2">warning Russia may attack another member in Europe</a> if it's not defeated in Ukraine.Members are ramping up defense spending and making more defense agreements with each other, with the ones closest to Russia <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/image-planned-7-layer-defensive-border-between-nato-and-russia-2024-5">boosting their border defenses</a>.Clarke explained that "as this crisis goes on, the prospect of a general war against NATO becomes more real. That's not to say that that's very likely, but it's at least a bit more likely than it was two years ago."<div type="image" title="NATO member country leaders sit under the alliance's sign" height="1333" width="2000" msid="112165373" hostid="261" sizebytes="157414"></div>Russia's air force would likely lose in a direct engagement with NATO air forces, multiple experts have told BI, as <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-doesnt-want-nato-war-russia-would-lose-quickly-uk-2024-2">NATO's combined airpower is much larger</a> and more advanced. But Baum and other air warfare experts have warned <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-war-teaching-nato-air-forces-lessons-fighting-russia-2024-7">Russia's air force should not be underestimated and cautioned that NATO should be ready</a>.Russia's air force is weaker than NATO's airpower, <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-war-teaching-nato-air-forces-lessons-fighting-russia-2024-7">but Russia's war in Ukraine shows it can still cause a lot of damage</a>. It adapts in devastating ways, as it has demonstrated with the guided glide bomb operations against Ukraine.Peter Layton, a fellow at the Griffith Asia Institute and a former Royal Australian Air Force officer, said that Russia may very well have a future NATO conflict in mind as it makes decisions today. For instance, Russia may believe that in a war with NATO, its air forces can "survive long enough to counter some NATO air raids and help defend Russian ground forces for a short time." Such a plan would require not squandering assets in Ukraine. And Layton wasn't the only expert to share in that assessment.Russian considerations may, in turn, be shaping current combat conditions in the war in Ukraine. "NATO's power in the air is inhibiting the Russians from committing all of their air power, or more of it, to Ukraine," Clarke said.He said Russia wants to keep its air force looking strong as a weaker Russian air force would "weaken Putin's political hand in anything he then tries to do in relation to NATO politics." And, in a future conflict, Russia would want its air force to be powerful.<h2 id="de24f675-77f8-4c4c-b4ea-0fd6db76993d">Ukraine is still downing Russian jets</h2>The Ukrainian armed forces have a significantly smaller and older air force than Russia does. Its few jets are all Soviet-era, but Russia has one of the world's biggest air forces with many more modern combat aircraft.But neither side has been particularly successful at changing the war from the air considering the threat posed to aircraft by the proliferation of ground-based air-defense systems.<div type="image" title="Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy standing in front of a Patriot anti-aircraft missile system during his visit to a military training area in Germany on June 11, 2024." height="720" width="1024" msid="112165375" hostid="261" sizebytes="26608"></div>Air warfare experts previously told BI that <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-air-force-enter-devastate-ukraine-if-missiles-run-out-2024-2">Ukraine's achievements here are remarkable</a> and ones that may have stopped the war from quickly ending in a Russian victory.Russia's losses are much higher than Ukraine's, though it has more to lose. According to an update from open-source intelligence site Oryx in February, Ukraine has lost at least 135 fixed and rotary-wing aircraft while <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-war-teaching-nato-air-forces-lessons-fighting-russia-2024-7">Russia has lost nearly double that figure</a>.Ukraine has claimed some big kill streaks shooting down Russian aircraft, including <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-war-army-destroyed-10th-russian-plane-days-2024-2">downing 10 jets in 10 days</a> in February. Russia's air force often <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-air-force-flights-ukraine-kill-streak-fighter-jets-isw-2024-3">appears to back off after such victories</a>.Beyond fighter jets and fighter-bombers, Ukrainian forces have also downed some high-value Russian aircraft. This <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-uses-patriot-missiles-down-russian-a50-spy-plane-us-2024-6">includes an A-50 command and control aircraft</a> in January. The Russians only have a few of these planes available.This prolific threat to anything flying would potentially put Russia's advanced Su-57s at risk were they to fly combat missions over Ukraine. But avoiding the fight has not completely shielded the small Su-57 fleet. Ukraine <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-feared-losing-su-57-combat-ukraine-hit-one-anyway-2024-6">managed to damage one in a long-range strike</a> on an air base hundreds of miles inside Russian territory.Holding its airpower back has largely protected the force, though. Layton said Russia has kept many of aircraft out of Ukrainian airspace since "at least after the first few months." Russia's air force has suffered high attrition rates from Ukraine's ground-based air defenses when operating in the country.<div type="image" title="A Russian Sukhoi Su-34 shot down by Ukrainian anti-aircraft guns" height="683" width="1024" msid="112165380" hostid="261" sizebytes="99858"></div>Russian combat aircraft tend to use weapons that let them "generally stay safely inside Russian airspace while firing into Ukraine." Russia notably saw big aircraft losses in February when more of its jets came close to the front lines to support land forces by launching glide bombs, Layton noted.He said that Russia "has a lot of trouble replacing lost advanced aircraft," only making a few a year. And sanctions from many countries against Russia for its invasion could make things more difficult, he said.Clarke said that Russia could use its strategic bombers more effectively if they flew over Ukrainian territory, but "they've only got a certain number of strategic bombers, and if they lose eight or 10 of them, then that will put quite a hole in the force."He said the environment in Ukraine is too "risky" for Russia's air force, especially if it wants to maintain its force for a future fight.<h2 id="a0c3531d-d04a-48ed-a956-2470e68e6e89">Russia's comfortable losing what it's losing now</h2>Curtis said Russia is using its most advanced assets in ways that keep them "completely safe," like launching long-range attacks from inside Russia. There's "effectively no risk," he said.And Layton said Russia may be motivated by its own weapons industry, which has ramped up but still faces challenges. "Any losses impact possible future export sales as Russian aircraft now appear less capable," he said. Some experts have suggested this as a possible reason for keeping the Su-57 out of the fight, especially given Russia's significant activity in foreign arms sales.<div type="image" title="Four Sukhoi Su-57 fighter jets in the air against a grey sky." height="1334" width="2000" msid="112165376" hostid="261" sizebytes="33020"></div>George Barros, a Russia analyst at the US-based Institute for the Study of War think tank that has been closely tracking the war, said Russia only has a small number of many of its most advanced aircraft, which means they wouldn't make a big difference if Russia was taking on NATO's air forces, though Russia has other capable platforms to supplement.He said that Russia has a propaganda reason for keeping them intact before any future conflict, one that even outweighs the effect they could have in Ukraine.On the Su-57, he said, "if the Russians were to lose it, it would be just such an international embarrassment."Experts <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/fifth-generation-jets-made-ukraine-war-russia-su-57-missing-2023-10">previously told Business Insider's Jake Epstein</a> that the absence of the Su-57 suggests Russia may not be confident in the jet and likely wants to avoid any potential reputational damage that would come if any were shot down.Gustav Gressel, a Russian defense policy expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said Russia has "very few" Su-57s, and "they are expensive to operate." Other jets can do the same jobs needed in Ukraine, he said, "and it would be less embarrassing if they would be shot down." Russia is <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/damaged-su-57-emphasises-vulnerability-russian-airbases-near-ukraine">understood</a> to have only around 20 Su-57s in service.Tim Robinson, a military aviation specialist at the UK's Royal Aeronautical Society, said that Russia's Su-57s "are the high-quality assets, high expensive assets, stealth fighters, and they don't want to lose them."Experts have also pointed to Russian fears that if its most advanced jets were shot down over Ukraine-held territory, it would expose their most advanced technology and could be a windfall for Ukraine's Western partners.Robinson said that if any Su-57s are shot down over Ukrainian-held territory, Western intelligence experts would get" to crawl all over it and find out its secret."<div type="image" title="Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy looks up while sitting in an F-16 fighter jet" height="5125" width="7687" msid="112165382" hostid="261" sizebytes="3152126"></div>Baum said Russia's decisions on what goes into Ukraine and what doesn't may be "calculated." They may have decided "that they don't need to roll out their more sophisticated weapons yet or ramp up their sortie rate yet," he explained.Curtis said that Russia is "happy to lose what it's using in Ukraine. And in most instances, I'm afraid, that's people." Russia has been known for treating its soldiers as disposable, including by using <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-losing-1000-soldiers-a-day-against-ukraine-report-war-2024-6">what are described as "meat grinder" tactics,</a> such as high-cost "human wave" assaults.He said that for now, Russia can afford to keep its most advanced assets out of Ukraine as its strategy for victory isn't by total military triumph. Instead, he said, Russia aims to grind down Western appetite for helping Ukraine and exhaust Ukraine's support.He said Russia is "not really going to be too fussed about how modern and how useful the capability" it gives its soldiers is.Defense reporter Jake Epstein contributed to this reporting.

With a NATO war and Ukraine's knack for shooting down planes in mind, Russia is holding back its airpower and most advanced jets

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Israel's weapon of choice in its attack on Iran was the air-launched ballistic missile.</li><li>These allowed Israel to strike Iran rapidly and with minimum risk to its own aircraft.</li></ul>Over 100 Israeli fighter jets <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-military-idf-targets-iran-retaliatory-strikes-missile-barrage-2024-10">attacked</a> 20 targets inside Iran, ranging from its top air defense systems to key missile manufacturing facilities, early on October 26. Their weapon of choice: Air-launched ballistic missiles.These allowed <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-fighter-jets-israel-air-war-gaza-2024-1">Israeli jets</a> to strike largely from beyond the reach of Iran's defenses and with fast flight paths, likely from neighboring Iraq, that complicated efforts to shoot them down."Based on open-source information and satellite imagery, it appears that Israel's use of air-launched ballistic missiles played a critical role in targeting and disabling Iran's air defense systems during the recent operation," Freddy Khoueiry, a global security analyst for the Middle East and North Africa at the risk intelligence company RANE, told Business Insider.Signs of Israel's strategy appeared shortly after the attack. Images on social media showed <a target="_blank" href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/iraq-complains-to-un-over-israels-use-of-its-airspace-to-strike-iran/">remnants of boosters</a> used by the Israelis that landed on Iraqi soil. Iranian officials initially claimed Tehran countered such missiles, saying they had <a target="_blank" href="https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/operation-days-repentance-impact-israels-strikes-iran">"very light warheads"</a> compared to Iranian <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/iran-attack-israel-ballistic-missiles-overhyped-2024-10">ground-launched ballistic missiles</a>, over 180 of which Iran fired at Israel in an enormous barrage on October 1.Analysts assessing the aftermath of the attack <a target="_blank" href="https://www.twz.com/news-features/israels-reprisal-strike-carefully-calculated-unclear-if-jets-ever-flew-over-iran">questioned</a> whether any of the Israeli jets, which included stealthy, fifth-generation F-35s, even entered Iranian airspace. Some targets were in the nearby Iranian border provinces of Khuzestan and Ilam, while the rest were in Tehran province, about 400 miles away.Before the attack, leaked US intelligence documents mentioned a hitherto unknown Israeli ALBM dubbed Golden Horizon and a long-range drone referred to as RA-01. Other known Israeli ALBMs, such as ROCKS, <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-hit-iran-with-half-ton-rampage-supersonic-missile-report-2024-4">Rampage</a>, and Air LORA have ranges of approximately 175 miles, enough to reach targets across Iran's border but insufficient for striking Tehran without entering Iranian airspace. Israel's Blue Sparrow, on the other hand, has an estimated 1,250-mile range."Golden Horizon likely has the range for Israeli aircraft to hit Tehran without having to enter Iranian airspace, removing a lot of risk from the equation," Sebastien Roblin, a widely published military-aviation journalist, told BI."However, Israeli officials said some IDF aircraft entered Iranian airspace," Roblin said. "Penetrating flight may have helped with target acquisition and bomb damage assessment of certain point targets, or delivery of attacks requiring greater precision."It's likely that only <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-f-35-stealth-fighter-failed-mission-capable-goals-watchdog-2024-10">F-35 stealth fighters</a>, and possibly RA-01s, entered Iranian airspace while fourth-generation F-15s and F-16 jets kept their distance.The Rampage missile is 4.7 meters long, roughly 15 feet, meaning it cannot fit in the F-35's internal weapons bay. The Golden Horizon is likely a similar size, if not larger. Carrying such a weapon externally would reduce the F-35's crucial stealth capabilities. If any F-35s entered Iranian airspace, they likely used smaller weapons carried internally."By targeting Iran's best surface-to-air missiles — allegedly knocking out all of Iran's <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/iran-may-upgrade-its-air-defenses-after-israeli-missile-strike-2024-4">remaining S-300s</a> — the attacks have also paved the way for future strikes to operate closer at reduced risk," Roblin said.Federico Borsari, a defense expert at the Centre for European Policy Analysis, noted it's hard to provide a "conclusive breakdown of the ordnance" Israel used but believes the spent boosters evidence suggests ALBMs played a significant role."At the same time, Israeli sources declared that F-35s entered Iranian airspace, potentially to conduct accurate live battle damage assessment without necessarily delivering strikes," Borsari told BI. "Given that Israel destroyed or damaged key radar and air defense sites in Iran, its F-35s could operate in a less threatening environment."For over 30 years, some Israeli officials have advocated the creation of a missile corps, invariably arguing that Israel cannot wholly rely on the air force against enemy ballistic missiles. Then-Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman <a target="_blank" href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/pauliddon/2024/01/09/former-israeli-defense-minister-who-predicted-hamas-massacre-warned-against-overreliance-on-air-force/">aptly summed up this view in 2018</a>, arguing Israel needed an "alternative to the air force" and couldn't "afford to put all our eggs into one basket, no matter how sophisticated that basket may be."The Israeli Air Force's use of various ALBMs suggests some middle ground was ultimately reached."Now it turns out that the IDF adopted the idea of a long-range missile system with conventional warheads — but instead of establishing a separate missile corps, it mounted these missiles on the attack aircraft that will serve as flying launchpads," <a target="_blank" href="https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/security-aviation/2024-10-23/ty-article/.premium/as-israel-readies-to-strike-iran-the-pentagon-spills-its-allys-secrets-in-real-time/00000192-b587-d40d-abb3-ff9772fd0000">noted a recent article</a> in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz."The air force vanquished all its critics and rivals and clearly maintained its primacy in the IDF."While Israel does have an arsenal of land-based Jericho intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs), these are reserved for <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/iran-hezbollah-israel-hidden-nuclear-weapons-arsenal-2024-7">nuclear</a> strikes. Using ALBMs for conventional strikes also has some advantages.Israel designed its Sparrow missiles <a target="_blank" href="https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/sparrow.htm">to simulate</a> Iraqi Scud and Iranian Shahab ground-launched missiles for testing its Arrow interceptor missiles, which successfully intercepted most of the incoming Iranian ballistic missiles fired at Israel on October 1.RANE's Khoueiry noted that while Israeli ALBM and Iranian short-range ballistic missiles may have similar ranges, the air-launch capabilities of the former "provide greater flexibility, faster deployment," and more advanced precision.Roblin pointed out that a missile launched from a fighter starts out with a "huge altitude and speed boost" compared with its ground-launched counterpart. The latter missile requires "a tremendous amount of the energy stored in its fuel lifting off the ground" while being slowed "by denser air particles" found at low altitudes."So, a missile of the same weight, motor, and fuel capacity can go further when air-launched," Roblin said. "ALBMs also can be released closer to target to reduce time-to-target and the reaction time available to defenses, and benefit from extended effective range courtesy of the carrying aircraft."

Strike on Iran shows Israeli Air Force's embrace of ballistic missiles 

Andrew Webber's forever war 

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group spent months battling the Houthis in the Red Sea.</li><li>The captain of the lead ship said the strike group destroyed over 100 Houthi threats during the deployment.</li></ul>A US Navy carrier strike group that battled Houthi threats in the Red Sea for months destroyed over 100 missiles and drones during its deployment.The Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group was on the front lines throughout much of the US military's ongoing campaign against the Houthis. It spent seven months engaged in <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft-carrier-eisenhower-planes-in-air-constantly-houthis-2024-2">constant combat operations</a> against the Iran-backed rebels in response to <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-battles-best-iranian-tech-red-sea-admiral-2024-10">their attacks on merchant shipping lanes</a>.Capt. Chris Hill, the commanding officer of the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, the strike group's flagship, said "there were very few days" during the first half of the year where "something did not happen" in the conflict.Incidents included <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/houthis-getting-smarter-red-sea-attacks-ships-paying-the-price-2024-6">Houthi missile and drone attacks</a> on military and civilian vessels and Navy airstrikes <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/inside-us-navy-aircraft-carrier-tactics-shift-houthi-missiles-drones-2024-2">targeting the rebels</a> and their weapons in Yemen, Hill shared with the Military Reporters &amp; Editors Conference in Washington on Friday.<div type="image" title="The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in June." height="3472" width="5208" msid="114599150" hostid="261" sizebytes="1049400"></div>The Eisenhower strike group, consisting of the carrier Ike and several other warships, "racked up a lot of equipment kills" during the deployment, Hill said. "I'm talking about shooting down well more than a hundred drones, a couple dozen ballistic missiles, some cruise missiles, and a couple dozen small boats.""We also destroyed hundreds of land targets to include surface-to-air missile systems, weapons caches, missiles and drones on the ground, and so on," Hill added.The Eisenhower strike group <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-carrier-strike-group-fired-nearly-800-munitions-houthi-fight-2024-7">fired nearly 800 munitions</a> during its deployment, which began last fall and wrapped up in July. These included surface-to-air interceptor missiles, land-attack missiles, air-to-air missiles, and air-to-surface weapons fired by warships and aircraft.These combat operations have come at a high cost, though. The Navy said it fired <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-warships-fired-munitions-substantial-cost-fighting-houthis-2024-8">over $1 billion worth of munitions</a> between early October 2023 and mid-July 2024. Several months later, US forces are still intercepting Houthi threats and <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/b-2-stealth-bombers-join-red-sea-fight-bomb-houthis-2024-10">striking the rebels in Yemen</a>.The high financial toll of the first few months of the <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-red-sea-fight-more-intense-tanker-war-captain-2024-7">Navy's counter-Houthi campaign</a> and the fact that it shows no clear signs of ending have raised <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-stuck-red-sea-battle-cant-fight-houthis-forever-2024-6">concerns about sustainment</a> and missile expenditure.<div type="image" title="An F/A-18E Super Hornet fighter jet takes off during flight operations aboard the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in January." height="3712" width="5568" msid="114599151" hostid="261" sizebytes="257734"></div>Hill said the strike group was aware of the concerns about conserving weapons and using expensive missiles — some worth several million dollars — against cheap Houthi drones that may cost just a few thousand.He said the strike group quickly transitioned to cheaper ways to destroy the Houthi drones, like taking them on the ground in Yemen using inexpensive Joint Direct Attack Munitions, or JDAMs. These are dumb bombs fitted with guidance kits that turn them into precision weapons. Navy F/A-18s also knocked out threats with their air-to-air missiles.Navy officials have praised the strike group heavily for its actions during the counter-Houthi campaign."When called upon, the force brought the fight to the Houthis in their front yard, linking airpower and dynamic and self-defense strikes," Vice Adm. George Wikoff, the US 5th Fleet commander, said <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-carrier-strike-group-eisenhower-houthis-red-sea-2024-6">upon the strike group's return </a>from its deployment in July."These acts reduced the risk to shipping and also reinforced our nation's commitment to maritime security," Wikoff said, calling it "the Navy's finest moments since World War II."

The US Navy's Eisenhower carrier strike group racked up over 100 drone and missile kills battling the Houthis

<ul class="summary-list"><li>South Korea is threatening to arm Ukraine in response to North Korea's support for Russia.</li><li>Its weapons stockpiles could make a big difference for Ukraine.</li></ul>South Korea threatened to send weapons and resources to Ukraine in response to its longtime foe, North Korea, escalating support for Russia's invasion.If it goes ahead, it could prove a powerful ally.After an emergency<a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-friendship-north-korea-backfired-south-military-troops-weapons-ukraine-2024-10"> National Security Council meeting</a> this week, top South Korean officials condemned North Korea for sending troops to Russia.Their mission has not been made explicit, but Ukraine has said they are there to join Russia's invasion.Officials also briefed news outlets that Seoul could send weapons to Ukraine as part of a series of phased countermeasures.South Korean news agency Yonhap on Tuesday cited security officials who said Seoul could even send military personnel to Ukraine to monitor North Korea's presence in the conflict.Russia's foreign ministry threatened South Korea with "security consequences" should it get involved, Yonhap reported.<h2 id="8030f100-6bcd-42f0-9d67-a514993196e6">A fearsome arsenal</h2>Analysts say Russia has a good reason to be concerned."South Korean weapons could potentially make a significant difference on both Ukraine's defensive capabilities and offensive capabilities," Jeremy Chan, a China and northeast Asia analyst at the Eurasia Group, told Business Insider.South Korea, a US ally, has built a formidable arsenal of weapons in its decadeslong stand-off with North Korea.It includes antiaircraft and anti-missile systems which could help Ukraine defend its towns and infrastructure from Russian attacks, Chan said.There are also "world-class" K9 Howitzer guns, K2 tanks, and multiple-rocket-launcher systems, Chan said.Seoul has already <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-south-korea-weapons-are-fueling-war-in-ukraine-2024-6">aided the supply of much-needed 155 mm shells to Ukraine</a>, albeit at one remove.South Korea sent ammo to Western allies like the US and Poland, which freed them up to send their own to Ukraine.Ellen Kim, a Korea expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC, told BI that South Korean support for Kyiv could include giving intelligence on North Korean weapons and tactics."South Korea could assist in a psychological warfare campaign against North Korean soldiers who may not want to fight in the war" as well, said Kim.US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said on Wednesday "there is evidence" that North Korean troops were already training in Russia, and warned against them joining the fight.Experts on the country's military told BI that <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-kim-north-korea-stops-troops-defecting-ukraine-russia-brutal-2024-10">soldiers sent there would be put under harsh measures</a> to discourage them from deserting.<div type="image" title="Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin stand under a stone gazebo surrounded by people in military dress and others in suits." height="683" width="1024" msid="114584570" hostid="261" sizebytes="76672"></div><h2 id="85fcc947-0229-475c-b487-07c13f903651">South Korea hesitates</h2>Significant obstacles stand in the way of South Korea arming Ukraine, though. Not least is South Korea's long-standing ban on sending military assistance to foreign countries at war.Chan said South Korea's President Yoon Suk-yeol was domestically unpopular and would encounter difficulties repealing the law via South Korea's center-left-dominated National Assembly."North Korea's actions would have to present a clearer and more immediate threat to South Korea's national security before we would expect the National Assembly to authorize export of weapons to Ukraine," he said.Another factor is South Korea's desire to not entirely destroy its relationship with Russia, <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-alliance-north-korea-proving-to-be-a-win-win-2024-8">despite its growing fears about</a> the Kremlin empowering North Korea and emboldening its leader Kim Jong Un, said Chain and Kim, the analysts.In return for North Korean shells and military support in Ukraine, the Kremlin has sought to stymie UN inspections of North Korea's nuclear program and could be prepared to hand it sophisticated military technology.<div type="image" title="Yoon Suk-yeol" height="1667" width="2500" msid="114584566" hostid="261" sizebytes="131216"></div><h2 id="3c02c1d5-7079-4090-99e7-db43b9ace220">Entrapment dilemma</h2>Chan said Yoon was figuring out the best way to deter Russia."Seoul believes that the threat to provide weapons gives it more leverage over Moscow than it would have if South Korea were to begin providing weapons directly," he said.Future diplomatic and trade ties are another reason South Korea is hesitating to act — as well as the prospect of being pulled further into the Ukraine war than it intends."There is a possibility South Korea could be shooting at Russians and/or North Koreans, and it would internationalize and widen the war further," Sean McFate, a strategy professor at Georgetown University, told BI."Worst case is it sparks a nuclear war on the Korean peninsula that drags the US and China into armed conflict."But the escalating alliance between Russia and North Korea may soon reach a point where South Korea feels it needs to act.Because of Russia's increasing reliance on North Korea, Kim finds himself in a powerful position to negotiate sophisticated technology in return.Such an exchange, said Chan, could be the red line that compels South Korea to get involved in the Ukraine war and send weapons.Although it has the military power to enable Ukraine to hurt Russia, it's an escalation that comes with real risks.As Ellen Kim put it: "North Korea's involvement dramatically raises the risk of entrapment for South Korea in the war."

If South Korea decides to get involved in Ukraine, it has powerful options

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Many of Ukraine's Western weapons won't make it to the end of the war if it really uses them, experts told BI.</li><li>Weapons like Abrams and F-16s have been given in small numbers, so Ukraine needs to take risks to maximize them, they said.</li></ul>The brutal war in Ukraine is the kind of conflict that is going to consume the Western tanks and fighter jets sent if Kyiv's forces really put them to work in battle, war experts told Business Insider, arguing that the West shouldn't be surprised if none of them make it to the end of the war.This is an intense, large-scale, protracted fight, and the Ukrainians need to make bold, high-risk, high-reward plays, they said. That doesn't preclude caution, but using them to their fullest risks losses."If any of the F-16s make it to the end of the war, they probably weren't used hard enough," Michael Bohnert, an air warfare expert at RAND Corporation, said."I hate saying that," he added, "but we as the West have to realize every Abrams tank that was given, every F-16, if any of them make it through the war, they probably weren't used to their maximum extent."Ukraine's Western partners sent fighters and tanks in small numbers, and those small numbers limit what Ukraine can do with the weapons. Maximizing potential means raising risks, and using them to their fullest is going to mean losses, especially in this kind of conflict.<div type="image" title="An F-16 fighter jet flying across gray skies." height="1933" width="3000" msid="114465834" hostid="261" sizebytes="244994"></div>William Alberque, a warfare expert at the Stimson Center, told BI that when it comes to Western weapons, "the maximization of potential means that a lot, if not all of them, may be destroyed."But if the weapons are "destroyed doing things that Ukraine could not have done otherwise and inflicting massive losses on Russia, then it's entirely worth it," he said. "We're giving them with the understanding that we're not getting them back."<h2 id="7dd047ab-a34b-4db4-8060-2629ab9a549c">Risk is necessary</h2>Alberque explained that "everything that we give Ukraine we have to assume can and will be destroyed in combat, but at the very least must be used to absolute maximum potential. And that entails risks.""And anyone who doesn't understand that doesn't understand the concept of generosity," he said.Bohnert noted that the Ukrainians do have to weigh the risk against "the propaganda that Russia will say: 'Oh, we shot down F-16s. Oh, we blew up an Abrams, et cetera.' But at the end of the day, this is winning a war and making sure Ukraine wins a war."<div type="image" title="A soldier climbing down from the front of a M1A1 Abrams tank." height="853" width="1280" msid="114465835" hostid="261" sizebytes="66962"></div>Instead of being put off by the potential for Russian celebration, Bohnert said, "we in the West have to be willing to accept that none of those F-16s might come home. The pilots hopefully come home.""If you look at World War II, most of the planes that we started with didn't end the war," he added.Ukraine's forces have already lost some of their Abrams tanks, numerous Bradley fighting vehicles, a number of Leopard tanks, and at least one of its new F-16 fighter jets, at times leading to questions about the value of the support being provided, but war analysts argue that isn't a reason for partners to panic.George Barros, a Russia expert and geospatial analyst at the Insitute at the Study of War, told BI that "pointing at some destroyed Ukrainian planes and lost pilots and then coming away with the conclusion like 'Oh, shoot, we can't do this'" would be the wrong way to look at things.He said that approaching it like that would be like Americans looking at what was happening "in World War II at the Battle of Britain and saying: 'Oh, man, the Brits are losing a lot of Spitfires, why are we still sending the UK raw materials and weapons?'"The conflict in Ukraine is a catastrophic, high-casualty fight that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, eating through men and equipment like the European continent hasn't seen in decades, really not since WWII.Bohnert said "that's just sadly the nature of warfare, that a lot of people don't come home. A lot of equipment never sees it through the war."In the West in recent decades, he said, "we're used to wars where 5, 10, 20 people die a month," wars like Iraq or Afghanistan, wars that, while tragic, didn't come close to this scale."We're used to these very low-casualty wars," he said, "and that's atypical in the history of mankind."The contrast between the slow, horrifically bloody, grinding war between Russia and Ukraine that has seen massive casualties and the recent wars the West has been involved in is one that many warfare experts have commented on, as well as fighters.<div type="image" title="Ukraine servicemen" height="683" width="1024" msid="114465831" hostid="261" sizebytes="83528"></div>A US veteran who fought in Ukraine <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="c-link" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/western-fighters-die-in-ukraine-assume-be-easy-us-veteran-2024-5">previously told BI</a> that there are many Western fighters who come to Ukraine thinking it will be easy, but instead, they find that their training has not sufficiently prepared them for the intensity. Many have been killed as a result, he said.The Ukraine war is a challenging fight where troops and equipment are consistently at risk because these assets are either shields or spears, either blunting a Russian attack or being used to break through Russian defenses, and that is going to mean losses if they're being put to work.Ukraine, for instance, lost its first F-16 during an air-defense mission aimed at protecting cities from a massive Russian missile barrage."If you're a Ukrainian, would you rather have lost an F-16 or an orphanage? This is the way we have to start thinking. This is the way the West has to start thinking of aid: That it's to win. It's not for show," Bohnert said.<div type="image" title="The undersides of 2 F-16s are seen flying against a grey sky" height="1291" width="2000" msid="114465830" hostid="261" sizebytes="56534"></div>Alberque said that for Ukraine, risks are necessary."You can ensure that you don't lose any F-16s if you don't fly any of them and you keep them in deep underground caves, but then what is the point?"<h2 id="58b8e595-abdc-4fda-945b-e1f50bf41d2f">Not the best stuff</h2>Ukraine only received a small number of F-16s, and so far, it has only received roughly a few dozen Abrams. With limited stockpiles, it has, at times, tried to play it safe.Alberque argued that Ukraine should consider taking more risks with them, because with so few, "you better use them hard because you can't hold back."Bohnert, likewise, said the West should allow Ukraine to take more risks with its weapons. He said the West, for example, should not restrict how Ukraine uses its F-16s, weapons that were first made by General Dynamics before that later passed to Lockheed Martin.Denmark, one of the countries giving Ukraine F-16s, <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-permission-hit-russia-f-16s-not-best-use-experts-2024-6">said that Ukraine can hit Russia with the F-16s that it gives</a> the country, but other allies have not said the same.Bohnert said "you should always allow someone to use their military in the most efficient way possible."Not only is this a war in which equipment will be lost if it's used in battle, especially if it's employed with a certain degree of risk, but it is also worth noting these aren't top-of-the-line systems.The Abrams tanks are older models without the top armor upgrades, and the F-16s are, too. These jets are capable fourth-generation fighters, but Western countries are already moving to new fifth-gen jets and researching sixth-gen options. The West isn't losing anything in Ukraine it can't afford to lose.Alberque said that reality should motivate the West to support Ukraine in taking risks."We're not giving them the best of the best of the best of the best," he said. "We're giving them the stuff that we think we can afford to give them. And for a lot of the European countries, this is stuff that they've already decided to replace."

Really putting Ukraine's Abrams and F-16s to work fighting Russia means most probably won't survive, but that's the kind of war this is

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Israel and Ukraine have weathered repeated ballistic missile attacks.</li><li>Ballistic missiles can strike with little to no warning time.</li></ul>The fireworks were impressive. Explosions, flames, and fiery streaks across the sky.But after launching <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/irans-missile-strike-israel-just-fraction-what-china-could-do-2024-10">hundreds</a> of ballistic missiles at Israel in two separate barrages, what has Iran to show for it? In the April attack — which comprised 300 missiles and drones — most were intercepted by forces from the US, Israel, Britain and Jordan. The October strike by 180 ballistic missiles saw a higher percentage of rockets penetrate defenses. Nonetheless, those that got through appear to have inflicted relatively <a target="_blank" href="https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/irans-missile-attack-challenge-israel-cant-ignore">minor damage</a>: some craters, a partly collapsed <a target="_blank" href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/school-in-gedera-severely-damaged-by-iranian-missile-impact/">school building</a>, and multiple strikes on an <a target="_blank" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meHjp7iYV98">Israeli Air Force base</a> that is still operational.Despite all the threats from Iran, Israel's military, infrastructure, and public morale remain intact. This resilience has similarities with Ukraine, whose population has endured two years of <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-kinzhal-missiles-beaten-by-patriots-slip-past-ukraine-defenses-2024-3">Russian missile attacks</a> but continues to fight on.All of which raises a question: is the danger of ballistic missiles overhyped? The issue has become more important than ever. Fifty years ago, the US and the Soviet Union owned most of the world's missile arsenal. Today, there are <a target="_blank" href="https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/worldwide-ballistic-missile-inventories">31 nations</a> that have ballistic missiles, plus non-state groups such as Hezbollah. With that much rocketry in the world, they are likely to be used in future wars.The threat of ballistic missiles — which follow a ballistic trajectory, rising to the edge of the atmosphere or into space, and then falling like a cannon ball — dates back 80 years, to just before the dawn of the Space Age. In 1944, Nazi Germany unleashed the <a target="_blank" href="https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/missile-surface-surface-v-2-4/nasm_A19600342000">V-2</a>, considered the world's first guided ballistic missile. Nearly 3,000 V-2s were launched at targets in Western Europe, with about half aimed at Britain. The British public was no stranger to death from the air: they had already endured the bomber raids of the Blitz, and the V-1 buzz bombs that were the forerunner of today's cruise missiles. But at least those weapons could be detected, giving time for people to take cover or air defenses to shoot them down. The V-2 was something different: ascending 60 miles to the edge of outer space, it slammed into its target without warning.Hitler promised the German people that the "wunderwaffe" (wonder weapons) would bring victory. Instead, the V-2 consumed considerable resources yet neither damaged the enemy's warmaking potential nor broke the population's support for the war. One problem was accuracy. The Germans estimated that the circular error probable — a standard measurement of how close 50% of munitions land to a target — was almost <a target="_blank" href="http://www.astronautix.com/v/v-2.html">three miles</a> for the V-2. By 1945, US B-17 bombers had a CEP of a quarter-mile.But the real problem was the payload. The V-2's warhead was just one ton of high explosive, delivered by a weapon that could only be used once. A B-17 Flying Fortress carried four tons of bombs, a British Lancaster could drop seven tons — and these planes could fly dozens of missions. Granted that there was the expense — and the risk — to the crew. But the US and Britain were flying raids of a thousand bombers each: even if accuracy was far from perfect, the sheer number of bombs devastated cities and, towards the war's end, hampered critical infrastructure such as oil refineries. Even this massive operation, however, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-israel-trying-to-achieve-in-gaza-bombing-2023-12">failed</a> to break German morale.In the 1980s came the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP88T00096R000100120003-6.pdf">"War of the Cities,"</a> when Iraq and Iran fired hundreds of ballistic missiles against each other's urban areas. Despite tens of thousands of civilian casualties, morale in neither nation collapsed, and the Iran-Iraq War dragged on for eight years. In 2015, Iranian-backed <a target="_blank" href="https://www.csis.org/analysis/iranian-and-houthi-war-against-saudi-arabia">Houthi</a> rebels in Yemen began a bombardment campaign against Saudi Arabia that included ballistic missiles. Though inflicting some damage on oil facilities, this was intended as political coercion against Saudi intervention in Yemen rather than an all-out attack on the kingdom.<div type="image" title="Missiles launched from Iran are seen in the sky over Tel Aviv." height="1333" width="2000" msid="114169750" hostid="261" sizebytes="151262"></div>It is not that conventional ballistic missiles aren't lethal, especially the modern versions. The early gyroscopic guidance systems on the V-2 have been replaced by more accurate <a target="_blank" href="https://www.advancednavigation.com/tech-articles/inertial-guidance-a-brief-history-and-overview/">inertial guidance</a>: a <a target="_blank" href="https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/minuteman-iii/">Minuteman</a> ICBM has a reported CEP of about 130 feet, which is fine for a nuclear warhead but not for a precision strike on a small target. For advanced missile powers such as America and Russia, inertial guidance can be supplemented by other systems, such as GPS, and onboard radar linked to a map of the terrain. US-made ATACMS GPS-guided missiles, for example, have proven quite accurate in Ukraine.Ironically, this can lead to what one expert has called the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-military-confidence-smart-bombs-may-have-a-fatal-flaw-2024-6">"precision paradox."</a> Accuracy doesn't always equal effectiveness: if a smart bomb misses its target, then follow-on strikes to accomplish the mission can actually cause as much collateral damage as unguided weapons.And therein lies the <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/why-iran-relies-on-ballistic-missiles-to-threaten-its-adversaries-2024-10">appeal of ballistic missiles</a> for less technologically advanced nations and militant groups. Even if they're not accurate, the mere threat of long-range missile bombardment might coerce or deter an adversary. With an estimated 3,000 ballistic missiles, Iran fields a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.iranwatch.org/our-publications/weapon-program-background-report/table-irans-missile-arsenal">variety of designs</a> of varying accuracy, some based on the Soviet Scud or North Korea's Nodong. Tehran claims its <a target="_blank" href="https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iranian-missile-strike-israel-shows-capability-greater-scale-complexity-2024-10-02/">latest missiles</a> have a CEP of around 65 feet, a suspect claim given the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/iran-ballistic-missiles-to-russia-questionable-accuracy-2024-9">observed inaccuracy</a> of some missiles in the April attack. A CEP of under 100 feet may be enough for damaging sprawling facilities such as airbases, ports and oil refineries. Against a pinpoint target such as a specific building, that might not be sufficient. And to get to that target, these weapons must get past increasingly capable air defense systems like <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-giving-ukraine-second-patriot-missile-system-fight-russia-reports-2024-6">Patriot</a>, Aegis, Arrow and Iron Dome.Even then, the question remains: Can ballistic missiles win a war? This echoes a debate from World War II, when Allied bomber chiefs argued that bombing German cities would win the war without the need for boots on the ground. Yet even after the Allies dropped <a target="_blank" href="https://repository.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4267&amp;context=gradschool_theses">2.7 million tons</a> of bombs in Europe, the Third Reich didn't surrender until Allied tanks were in the streets of Berlin. Nor did over 7.5 million tons of ordnance compel North Vietnam to cease its war against South Vietnam.Iranian missiles have not deterred Israel from pursuing its campaigns in <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-attack-lebanon-hezbollah-past-invasion-2024-10">Lebanon</a> and Gaza, nor are they likely to. Iran's 3,000 missiles sound quite impressive. But even if they were all launched at Israel simultaneously, some would malfunction on launch, some would be intercepted, and still others — how many can only be guessed at — would miss their target. In the end, the amount of high-explosive landing on Israeli soil would be less than a single Allied bomber raid in World War II.The proliferation of ballistic missiles is a danger. Given accurate guidance systems, they can damage vital targets. Given less accuracy, they can serve as terror weapons against cities. But they cannot win a war alone.Michael Peck is a defense writer whose work has appeared in Forbes, Defense News, Foreign Policy magazine, and other publications. He holds an MA in political science from Rutgers Univ. Follow him on <a target="_blank" href="https://www.twitter.com/@mipeck1">Twitter</a> and <a target="_blank" href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/mipeck/">LinkedIn</a>.

You Searched For "Shooting" and got 11 results

America's defeat in Vietnam offers a game plan for Ukrainian victory

Michael Peck

The Onion buys Alex Jones's Infowars — and that's not a joke

Grace Eliza Goodwin

The US needs ammunition for its next big war — a lot of it

Jake Epstein

The US is deploying more warships able to shoot down ballistic missiles to keep Iran and its friends in check

Jake Epstein

With a NATO war and Ukraine's knack for shooting down planes in mind, Russia is holding back its airpower and most advanced jets

Sinéad Baker

Strike on Iran shows Israeli Air Force's embrace of ballistic missiles

Paul Iddon

Andrew Webber's forever war

Sam Fellman,Ryan Pickrell

The US Navy's Eisenhower carrier strike group racked up over 100 drone and missile kills battling the Houthis

Jake Epstein

If South Korea decides to get involved in Ukraine, it has powerful options

Tom Porter

Really putting Ukraine's Abrams and F-16s to work fighting Russia means most probably won't survive, but that's the kind of war this is

Sinéad Baker

Iran's attacks on Israel suggest ballistic missiles are an overhyped threat

Michael Peck

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides