I'd hesitate to take these guys too seriously, seeing as one of the articles linked from this one is a transparently absurd attempt to play up the Kirov-class guided-missile cruisers, of which three out of the total four are currently laid up, as a serious threat to US carrier strike groups, despite the Kirov armament being so heavily focused on surface-to-air work, i.e. anti-air defense, that it barely bothers to carry any antisurface capability at all. Another recommended article is a multi-part series insisting the only sensible course of action available is that we invade North Korea now.
Looking at National Interest's about page, I find the first billed founder is Irving Kristol - a man instantly recognizable to students of recent history as the father of neoconservatism. You'll have to judge for yourself whether the fruits of that particular political movement are such as to recommend the unskeptical consideration of any claim advanced by its adherents - especially when such claims tend in the direction of another pointless, long drawn-out fight that's of no ultimate benefit to anyone anywhere.
It might, for example, be mildly invidious to say that the same "chickenhawks", who last decade suckered a credulous US leader into a new-styled yet no less horrific and pointless Middle Eastern Vietnam, here show that they have managed the - by some measure, very impressive! - feat of learning absolutely nothing from their manifold and grievous errors - not even the minimal good grace required to accept manfully the verdict of utter discreditation which history has delivered upon them; and then, not satisfied with the vast scope of human and economic ruin which they have already wrought, they continue to insist that their soi-disant "New American Century", to the very greatest possible extent, be one of utterly pointless blood and fire.
But were someone to say something of the sort, one might, after consideration of relevant recent history, perhaps hesitate to castigate that person very harshly for so doing.
This was a reprint in a pretty fascinating military website http://warisboring.com/. I just figured I'd link to the source and not the reprint. I don't disagree with much of any of your analysis, just thought the story (as it is actual history) was fascinating.
At least one of the NI authors whose articles I read this morning also writes for War is Boring. Not sure if it's this one and no time to double check, but I think it might be.
Such bias is probably relevant for articles estimating current military strength, or evaluating national strategy, and so on; topics where you need judgment to make sense of ambiguous data.
But I don't see why you would think this article should be distrusted. It just describes a historical event, which was widely covered by newspapers at the time.
I don't doubt the facts. I question the analysis and what motivates it, coming as it does from a think tank that's busily trying to sell a plan for a war with North Korea.
Yes, that's what I mean. It's not a significant conventional threat to a carrier strike group, not in the way that, for example, even conventionally armed Moskits very well can be. And Russia's not about to change the rules of nuclear warfare - or, rather, the rule, which is "thou shalt not" - by trying to take out a strike group with nuclear arms. Even a failed attempt would all but require a comparable response, and Russia's economy does not seem well equipped to effectively support a nuclear arsenal likely to be even more decrepit than our own - to say nothing of the fact that it's not a war anyone wants, in any case.
And here we have someone trying to sell it as a real threat, nonetheless. I think I know why that is, and in my earlier comment I explained part of my thinking. Agree or don't with that analysis - I think it's still worth wondering what makes it worth National Interest's time and money to advance the still highly questionable claim I discuss.
I'm not arguing that their facts are wrong. I'm asking: Why this article, at this time, from this organization? And I'm offering what I believe to be an accurate answer to that question.
You can argue if you like that I'm merely engaging in ad hom, but I think that's a rather shallow reading, and not noticeably accurate; what I'm actually doing is identifying the intellectual tradition in which the publication bases its analysis, and calling the validity of that analysis into question on the basis of the grievously flawed results which in recent years it has exclusively produced.
Considering that the same publication is concurrently pushing its plan for war with North Korea - a plan which to its originators no doubt seems every bit as sensible and effective as the one they came up with last decade and which has clearly worked out so amazingly well - I think the provenance of even so anodyne an analysis as this one is nonetheless worth bringing to the attention of the HN commentariat, that we may all judge it in light of its full context. Perhaps I am wrong in so thinking.
Well, it's 'this article' because SEJeff posted it and I and many others upvoted it. So that leaves your attempt to try to link this article with other articles on the same website rather unsupported.
Unless you would like to link all of us with your conspiracy theory.
To me it's just an interesting look at how arms embargo evasion works, and how shockingly easy it was to get this deal done.
What? I'm talking about why they published it when they did and several months after it was actually news, not why SEJeff submitted it here. HN only enters into the issue at all inasmuch as the article happened to appear here.
More specifically, this is a publication whose purpose is to advance a foreign policy narrative that's favored by one specific school of foreign-policy thought - indeed, a publication founded by that school of thought's own founder. Call it "conspiracy theory" if you like to suggest that such a publication might act in ways which tend to advance that narrative, but I'm not sure it's really so unreasonable as all that.
(Since the next step in this progression should be suggesting I have some sort of covert dog in the fight, I'll go ahead and disclaim that in advance: I'm nothing in foreign policy circles and no one of import listens to anything I have to say. But in light of the quality of results which neoconservative foreign policy produced last decade, I feel like it's worth taking a moment to point out that maybe we could come up with something better to do in this decade.)
tl;dr They simply bought them through Soviet front companies, operating in West Germany. Instead of trucking them to ports for shippment to NATO countries, they trucked them to a Soviet freighter, and floated them to North Korea.
Hey, we’re buying helicopters, and we’re shipping them here.
Surprise! They get shipped somewhere else.
To maintain cover for a bugging operation, Western allies only busted the last shipment of 15, as a check on the operation, as if to say “oh look, we see you, but how?”
Meanwhile, the intended purpose was to mingle with South Korean vehicles of the same make and model, over the DMZ, by matching paint jobs, so as to be extra confusing, opportunistically.
The article seems to exclude details regarding a mysterious entity named “The Semler Brothers” which are mentioned twice, but uh... wait, who?
Out of nowhere that name is dropped, and why? Who are they? Is this some kind of hamfisted redaction bleeding through from the research for the article? Slightly mysterious.
They also managed to smuggle in a PAC 750, made in New Zealand, last year (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAC_P-750_XSTOL). They're designed to be used to drop parachutists, as well as fly low level for crop dusting, and have an extremely short take-off distance of 220 m.
Recreational skydivers are a world away from airborne troops, I was expecting something like a Hercules when I clicked the link! With all their gear you could probably put a single section in one of those, a Hercules can comfortably handle two whole platoons!
It would be a lot easier to sneak one of these across the border and insert a special forces team, than to try and fly a Hercules across the border.
This is why North Korea is such a fan of the AN-2, a seemingly deprecated piston powered biplane. But it has STOL capabilities, and no effective stall speed. It can be flown low and slow, perfect for evading hostile air defense.
> Pyongyang kept its substantial MD 500 fleet under wraps for decades,
Well only to the extent that NK keeps everything under wraps. Their possession of the MD500s was well-known by the mid-1980s and South Korean authorities used to order snap-groundings of the type. Any still flying were treated 'robustly'.
They are too small and simple a design to conceal anything like that from mechanics working on them. You could arrange for them to be made from substandard materials I suppose. That doesn't seem to be the case here tho'.
Every time I scroll on this damned website, a blank black 1 second video pops up and covers the screen and then goes back up into the upper left corner.
Looking at National Interest's about page, I find the first billed founder is Irving Kristol - a man instantly recognizable to students of recent history as the father of neoconservatism. You'll have to judge for yourself whether the fruits of that particular political movement are such as to recommend the unskeptical consideration of any claim advanced by its adherents - especially when such claims tend in the direction of another pointless, long drawn-out fight that's of no ultimate benefit to anyone anywhere.
It might, for example, be mildly invidious to say that the same "chickenhawks", who last decade suckered a credulous US leader into a new-styled yet no less horrific and pointless Middle Eastern Vietnam, here show that they have managed the - by some measure, very impressive! - feat of learning absolutely nothing from their manifold and grievous errors - not even the minimal good grace required to accept manfully the verdict of utter discreditation which history has delivered upon them; and then, not satisfied with the vast scope of human and economic ruin which they have already wrought, they continue to insist that their soi-disant "New American Century", to the very greatest possible extent, be one of utterly pointless blood and fire.
But were someone to say something of the sort, one might, after consideration of relevant recent history, perhaps hesitate to castigate that person very harshly for so doing.