The 5 Deadly Deadly Guns of Modern War

While everyone oohs and aahs over nuclear weapons, submarines and stealth fighters, modern wars usually involve infantries on the ground—and they need guns

by Kyle Mizokami

Modern warfare has seen breathtaking advances in the last hundred years, as mortal competition between nations spawns successively deadlier weapons.Aircraft, missiles, tanks, submarines and other inventions, many of which did not exist in practical terms in 1914 — have quickly earned key positions in the militaries of the world. Yet there is still one invention that, although conceived more than five hundred years ago, still has a vital place on today’s battlefield: the infantry weapon and supporting arms. No matter how high tech the armed forces of the world have become, warfare since the end of the Second World War has consistently involved some form of infantry combat.

With that in mind, here are five of the most deadly guns of modern war.

AK-47:

The undisputed king of the modern battlefield is the Avtomat Kalashnikova model 47, or AK-47. Extremely reliable, the AK-47 is plentiful on Third World battlefields. From American rap music to Zimbabwe, the AK-47 has achieved icon status, and is one of the most recognizable symbols—of any kind—in the world. The AK series of rifles is currently carried by fighters of the Islamic State, Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, various factions in Libya and both sides in the Ukraine conflict.

Read More

What is the National Interest?

The “national interest” is a term commonly thrown around in political debates and policy discussions but very rarely defined. This is partly for political reasons, because no politician or activist would ever claim to be against the national interest (it’s easy to be for it when you don’t define it) and partly for practical reasons, because the national interest is a very hard thing to define.

What do YOU mean by national interest?

Many of the most seemingly intractable debates in ethics, public policy, and other areas of great importance stem from lack of clarity about terms – if my opponent and I both use the term “equality” but he means equality of result whereas I mean equality of opportunity we’re going to talk past each other. Worse, the lack of clarity hinders clear thinking about necessary compromises, turning conflicts about means into conflicts about values when they do not need to be.

Read More