The Air Force recently released its outline for a 30-year strategy, charting the future of a branch of the military that has been recently transformed by technological innovations like the development of advanced unmanned aerial vehicles. In the new plan, the Air Force highlighted technologies it would be targeting in the coming decades.

The advances will focus on adding even more "speed, range, flexibility, and precision" to the Force's operations. 

"The aircraft as an instrument of war was once considered 'game changing,'" the report says. "Pursuit of the next 'game changing' technology is central to maintaining the asymmetric advantage our Air Force has always provided the nation."

The report highlighted five areas in which the branch will direct its attention over the next three decades — technological developments that can keep the Air Force prepared to face future threats and maintain the U.S.' global military edge.

Hypersonics

The Air Force has a natural interest in increasing its planes' speed, a development that would vastly broaden the Force's travel and attack options.

"Though we may not always desire to operate at the fastest possible speed, the ability to do so creates a significant advantage," the report said.

Back in 2013, the Air Force tested the Boeing X-51A, which reached Mach 5.1 and traveled 230 nautical miles in six minutes, making it the "longest air-breathing hypersonic flight ever."

The Air Force also plans to test a technology called boost-glide, which it hopes to have ready by 2020 at the latest, Breaking Defense reported. A boost-glided projectile is a "payload delivery vehicle that glide[s] at hypersonic speeds in the atmosphere for most of [its] flight path," an Air Force officer told Space News in 2011. The eventual goal is to have "boost-glide running at Mach 8 speeds, which is more than 6,000 miles per hour." 

Nanotechnology

The Air Force believes that nano-technology will have a direct application for both flight and space travel.

"By manipulating materials at the molecular level, we can create structures that are both stronger and lighter, contributing to both speed and range," the report said.

Miniature systems will also allow for the Air Force to operate in new situations and could change the way the branch approaches its missions in "highly contested environments," per the report.

On a similarly small scale, researchers backed by the Air Force have been designing a small, bandage-like patch that would monitor stress and fatigue levels for military combatants, The Boston Globe reports. Surely, this is something that would be sure to make its way to airmen and commanders once completed.

Directed Energy

In plain English, this means lasers. 

The Navy has been working on the Laser Weapon System, or LAWS, per National Defense Magazine.

The system combines six lasers, which converge on one target. Last year, the system was installed on a battleship and tested on a flying drone. When its lasers converged, the drone burst into flames in mid-air, National Defense Magazine reports.

“In terms of power, the Marines want flaming balls of wreckage falling from the sky,” Lee Mastroianni, program manager for force protection in the Office of Naval Research’s expeditionary maneuver warfare and combating terrorism department, told National Defense Magazine. “That is our program goal.”

Unmanned Systems

After being used exclusively by the military, drones are now starting to be adopted for civilian use, but the Air Force continues to lead the avant-garde of unmanned aerial technology.

The Air Force outlined a need to continue expanding drone technology within the report. Most importantly, the Air Force wants drones where "[i]n an offensive scenario, they will swarm, suppress, deceive, or destroy."

In simpler terms, rather than just being able to monitor a situation from high in the sky, or launch a directed-missile attack, the Air Force would like to have drones that can engage in closer-combat, serving as futuristic fighter planes.

Autonomous Systems

Robots, in other words.

"Future systems will be able to react to their environment and perform more situational-dependent tasks as well as synchronized and integrated functions with other autonomous systems," the Air Force report said.

The Air Force wants to use robot-fighters, capable of making their own choices, within the next 30 years.

Boston Dynamics has already begun making robot-fighter prototypes for the military, such as the Atlas, pictured above. The Atlas is already capable of running, climbing, and jumping, even on treacherous terrain.

NOW WATCH: Here's The Underwater Drone The Navy Will Use To Spy On Enemy Submarines

SEE ALSO: These High-Powered Lasers Are The Future Of Warfare

Join the conversation about this story »

In June of 1812, Napoleon set off to invade Russia with one of the largest armies the world had ever seen.

Six months later, a mere fraction of Napoleon’s army — perhaps as little as 5%  — hobbled home across the Niemen River.

Historians have long wondered how one of the world’s most brilliant generals could have failed so spectacularly. After all, Napoleon lost relatively few men in battle. Most blamed the army’s poor logistics, or the bitter Russian winter.

But Carl von Clausewitz, the noted Prussian military theorist, blamed another culprit: communicable disease.

As the Prussian notes in his seminal work, “On War,” Napoleon began his campaign in June with a center army nearly 300,000 men strong. Less than two months later, he had lost nearly a third of his fighting strength, without even having fought a major battle.  Indeed, Clausewitz notes, “It is not unusual that a victorious army suffers greater losses from sickness than from battle.”

Napoleon was hardly unique. Armies have traditionally succumbed more to illness than anything else.

Little mentioned in military history, however, is how preventive medicine, or a lack thereof, has had a dramatic impact on the battlefield.

During the American Revolution, Britain’s Royal Navy was unable to sustain its blockade of France for more than a few weeks at a time, following the latter’s entry into America’s war of independence after the Battle of Saratoga. French troopships, loaded with men and material, routinely landed in the New World, where they had a decisive impact on the campaign.

How could the French slip past the British blockade so easily? Simple. The Royal Navy could only remain at sea for a few weeks before British sailors became crippled with disease, most notably, scurvy.

Towards the end of the Revolutionary War, physicians within the Royal Navy ushered in remarkable improvements in preventive medicine. One doctor, having observed the rapid spread of communicable disease, instituted a thorough sanitation program, ordering living quarters scrubbed, and bedding aired out during the day.

The Royal Navy’s advancements in basic sanitation were coupled with improvements in sailors’ diets. As described by Piers Macksey in his book “The War for America: 1775-1783,” by the mid-18th century, doctors had established a link between lemon juice, which contained vitamin C, and the prevention of scurvy. In fact, Captain James Cook had circumnavigated the world in 1775 without losing a single sailor to the disease.

Still, it would take nearly 20 more years for the Royal Navy to regularly issue lemon juice to sailors. But the results were little short of miraculous: the Royal Navy had all but eradicated scurvy within the ranks after five years. By 1815, these advances in preventive medicine and nutrition had reduced sickness nearly sevenfold, giving the Royal Navy the manpower necessary to bottle Napoleon up in continental Europe.

Advances in both food production and preventive medicine allowed nations to not only field much larger armies, but to minimize casualties as well. In the early 19th century, armies often foraged for food, and were forced to halt in the afternoon to gather wood and build cooking fires.

A century later, during World War I, industrialized nations were able to sustain million-man armies with canned foods. If you were to fast forward yet another century, you’d find soldiers in Afghanistan actually gaining weight on 31 flavors of ice cream in the Kandahar dining facility.

But modern war isn’t all fun and games and Salsa Night. Indeed, though modern soldiers may be able to enjoy the latest culinary delights, they still often find themselves crammed into close living quarters, as soldiers have been for millennia perpetuating the rapid spread of communicable disease.

But steady advances in immunization and other medicines diminished the number of soldiers who died or were otherwise incapacitated by illness. Whereas deaths due to “other” means (e.g., disease) outnumbered those killed in battle by 50% during the American Civil War, they comprised only a quarter of all losses during the Second World War.

Losses due to disease continued to decline rapidly over the latter half of the 20th century, to the point where gangrene, malaria, and trench foot, are practically unheard of. In fact, some might argue that vaccinations have proven such miraculous feats that many today take them for granted (perhaps explaining why families today have recklessly neglected to have their children immunized).

Of course, tanks and airplanes win battles, that much is clear. But forget even getting to the battlefield without the medical care necessary to field, feed, and sustain a healthy fighting force. Indeed, the most powerful battlefield innovations of the last few hundred years haven’t been gunpowder and gasoline, but rather, soup cans, needles, and lemon juice.

Crispin Burke is an active-duty Army officer stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Follow him on Twitter.

SEE ALSO: The Marine Corps Stores Huge Amounts Of Armor And Weaponry In Norwegian Caves

Join the conversation about this story »

The school board in Compton, California, has voted to arm campus police officers with AR-15 rifles, according to the Los Angeles public radio station KPPC. Some parents and students are expressing discomfort, citing the same sorts of concerns sparked by the militarized police force of Ferguson, Missouri.

In Compton, the local police union says its officers are hardly alone in seeking such weapons:

Currently, the following School Districts authorize their Police Officers to deploy these weapons; Los Angeles School PD, Baldwin Park School PD, Santa Ana School PD, Fontana School PD, San Bernandino School PD.

The police union goes on to defend the semi-automatic rifle for campus police officers:

If we encounter an active mass murderer on campus with a rifle or body armor, our officers may not adequately be prepared to stop that suspect. School Police Officers will undergo a training course, followed by a shooting proficiency test on a firing range and a written exam. The rifles are designed for increased accuracy and use rifled ammunition than can pierce body armor. The safety of our Students, Staff, and Parents are very important to us.

In a recent New York Times item, Ross Douthat rebutted just that sort of argument.

He says of school shootings:

...the evidence that such sprees are sharply increasing is shaky and debatable, and the evidence that a more militarized police is necessarily crucial to stopping such killers seems thin as well. In Sandy Hook, for instance, the killer committed suicide about ninety seconds after the cops arrived; in Aurora, the killer surrendered to police; at Virginia Tech, the killer shot himself rather than engage with police. (At Columbine, things were more complicated: there were cops surrounding the school who didn’t fully engage until the SWAT teams arrived, which could be a case that the average cop should be trained more like a SWAT member … except that then the SWAT teams moved extremely slowly through the school as well, because even heavily armed and armored cops can be—understandably—loath to rush in without knowing how many active shooters they’re facing.)

From the D.C. sniper (picked up at a rest stop) to the Isla Vista killer (dead by suicide after a car chase), there just aren’t that many recent cases where a spree killer has gone down, Symbionese Liberation Army-style, after a long siege or in a hail of bullets that only a militarized police unit could deliver, or where specialized equipment has made all the difference to the cops. It’s much more common for such killers to either take their own lives or surrender, and when they’ve been stopped by return fire from cops, it’s usually been regular police units rather than SWAT teams that have done the necessary work.

None of this means, again, that SWAT teams shouldn’t exist; it should just cast doubt on the idea that every police department needs SWAT equipment and lots of it, and that arming them accordingly will make all the difference when a psychopath comes calling. 

The campus officers in Compton are expected to be trained and have the new weapons within a month. And the nationwide trend of militarized police officers continues, even in schools with heavily armed city and county police agencies nearby. It's easy to imagine a lot of areas where extra training would benefit Compton's school resource officers—and hard to imagine AR-15 training is high on the list.

Join the conversation about this story »

Human ingenuity has a way of triumphing over basic logic, and weapons design is one area where impractical ideas and designs have actually worked out.

A recent Quora thread posed the question of "what are some of the most ingenious weapons throughout history?" The answers span a wide spectrum of inventiveness, while providing insights into some of the truly remarkable — seemingly batty — ways humans have waged war. 

We've highlighted some of the more ridiculous examples of human ingenuity below. 

1. The Claw of Archimedes 

The Claw of Archimedes was a defensive weapon built by the legendary mathematician to defend the city of Syracuse, in modern-day Sicily, against a naval assault.

There is debate as to exactly how the claw functioned, but it was thought to be a sort of crane equipped with a grappling hook that could partially lift attacking ships out of the water. 

The claw would then drop the ships, causing them to capsize. The claw saw action during the Second Punic War, and successfully defended the city against a Roman attack. 

2. Snake Bombs 

In 190 BC, the Carthaginian general Hannibal won a massive surprise victory against King Eumenes II of Pergamon. Although vastly outnumbered, Hannibal had an ingenious strategy. Short on other weapons, Hannibal filled clay pots full of venomous snakes. 

During the proceeding naval battle, Hannibal's forces fired hundreds of clay pots filled of the snakes against Pergamon's navy. Between the snakes and Hannibal's fighters, his army scored a resounding victory. 

3. The Bouncing Bomb

The bouncing bomb was a munition designed to bounce across the surface of the water before sinking and exploding in a manner similar to a depth charge. The bomb was invented to hit targets that could not be reached by normal bombing or by torpedoes, like the foundations of dams that had been protected with torpedo nets. 

The bombs were used by the British during World War Two to target German dams.

4. The Spear-Thrower  

Spear-throwers are one of history's earliest instances of truly ingenious weapon design. The tool is remarkably simple, consisting of nothing more than a shaft and a spur that supports a projectile. A fighter holds the spear-thrower, and carries out a throw. 

The projectile is then launched from the lever with greater velocity, since the spear-thrower and the throwing arm function together as a lever, providing greater range and penetrating ability.

The spear-thrower was invented by multiple groups throughout the world. 

5. The Turtle Ship

Turtle ships were a type of naval vessel used by the Korean navy between the 15th and 19th centuries. The ships had closed tops of spiked iron that deflected arrow fire and discouraged enemies from boarding the ship. Each ship was also equipped with at least five cannons, and portholes for arrows or muskets. 

The most recognizeable part of the ship was a dragon-shaped head on the bow, which was used to launch cannon fire or flames at enemy ships. 

6. Greek Fire 

Greek fire was a sort of proto-napalm used by the Byzantines between the 7th and 10th centuries. It was a closely guarded state secret of the Byzantines, and the exact formula for the weapon has been lost. 

The Byzantines sprayed fire from nozzles attached to their ships, giving the empire an unparalleled advantage in naval combat. The fire was particularly effective, and would even float across the top of the water while remaining alight. 

7. Tachanka 

The Tachanka was a cart or wagon which had been outfitted with a heavy machine gun in the back and reached peak use World War I and the proceeding Russian Civil War. 

The cart was pulled by two to four horses, making it one of the first automated and highly mobile pieces of artillery. Since the machine gun faced backwards, the weapon was also used during raids and retreats to lay down cover fire on pursuing enemies. 

SEE ALSO: 7 unbelievable military weapons most people have never heard of

Join the conversation about this story »

China and the U.S. have both conducted tests of new hypersonic weapons systems over the past month. Although both tests were unsuccessful, they signal continuing military competition between the two countries, which are each attempting to develop high-accuracy projectiles that can travel several times faster than the speed of sound.

On August 7, China performed an unsuccessful second test of its WU-14 hypersonic glide vehicle. The U.S. in turn tested its Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW) from the Kodiak Launch Complex in Alaska on August 25.

The U.S. test also failed.Hypersonic weapons can hit their targets extremely quickly and effectively. If ever made operable, these weapons would be able to to travel five times faster than the speed of sound and cover a range of several thousand miles. 

Although this phase of the hypersonic arms race between China and the U.S. is fairly recent, the weapons themselves have existed in some form for decades. 

"Hypersonic weapons are not that new," James Acton, a senior associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Arms Control Wonk. "Ballistic missiles are hypersonic weapons." 

However, the weapons that the U.S. and China are now testing belong to a different class of hypersonic weaponry called "boost-glide weapons."

Boost-glide weapons "are launched by big rockets just like a ballistic missile is," Acton said, "but then rather than arcing higher than the atmosphere, they are put on a trajectory to reenter the atmosphere as quickly as possible. Then they just glide to the target." 

Boost-glide weapons are capable of traveling on a trajectory that makes them difficult for missile-defense systems to intercept. These systems are designed to work against the high arc of traditional ballistic missiles. Boost-glide projectiles travel quickly and at a flat angle, working at speeds and trajectories that flummox existing missile defense technologies. 

Prior to the most recent failed launches by China and the U.S., both nations had successfully carried out test-runs of their boost-glide systems. In January, China tested its WU-14, a sucess which served "as a sign of China moving towards longer range, stronger retaliatory and potentially preemptive capability,” Lora Saalman, a specialist on China with the Carnegie Endowment, told The Washington Free Beacon. 

The U.S.'s concern, according to Saalman, is that China may eventually use its boost-glide weapons as nuclear delivery system. This could give China hypothetical nuclear first-strike capability across large portions of the globe, assuming that the U.S. doesn't develop this capability as well.

In 2011, American successfully test-fired the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon. During that test, the AHW flew 2,300 miles in less than half an hour.

The cause for the most recent failure of the AHW in Alaska is uncertain, and the damage at the launch facility was apparently extensive. 

Along with China and the U.S., Russia and India are also engaged in developing hypersonic weapons programs. 

SEE ALSO: The future of hypersonic weapons

Join the conversation about this story »

Islamic State fighters appear to be using captured US military issue arms and weapons supplied to moderate rebels in Syria by Saudi Arabia, according to a report published on Monday.

The study by the London-based small-arms research organisation Conflict Armament Research documented weapons seized by Kurdish forces from militants in Iraq and Syria over a 10-day period in July.

The report said the jihadists disposed of "significant quantities" of US-made small arms including M16 assault rifles and included photos showing the markings "Property of US Govt".

It also found that anti-tank rockets used by IS in Syria were "identical to M79 rockets transferred by Saudi Arabia to forces operating under the Free Syrian Army umbrella in 2013".

The rockets were made in the then Yugoslavia in the 1980s.

Islamic State is believed to have seized large quantities of weapons from Syrian military installations it has captured, as well as arms supplied by the United States to the Iraqi army after it swept through northern Iraq in recent weeks.

SEE ALSO: 5 Myths About The Islamic State

Join the conversation about this story »

National Security Advisor Susan Rice is in China this week, discussing recent sticking-points in trans-Pacific relations with her counterparts in Beijing, chief among them a mid-August confrontation between a U.S. surveillance plane and a Chinese fighter jet over the South China Sea.

There's a lot for U.S. and Chinese security officials to talk through, from problematic Chinese territorial claims to alleged state-backed hacking of American government computer systems. One item that could be on the menu for the talks has to do with a newly-confirmed Chinese missile technology that could target American assets. 

Back in March, Chinese officials confirmed the existence of the DF-26c, a road-mobile mid-range ballistic missile that can fire at targets of up to 3,500 kilometers with greater precision than any other comparable Chinese-made system. As an analysis on the military affairs website Strategy Page noted on September 8th, that puts U.S. bases in Guam within range of one of China's most advanced weapons.

Strategy Page's analysis doesn't conclude there are Chinese DF-26c batteries aimed at U.S. assets — it specifically notes China, like most countries, doesn't reveal who it's targeting with its ballistic missiles at any given time. However, the DF-26c has certain advantages over the rest of the Chinese arsenal. It's truck-mounted, and runs off of efficient, easily-stored, and relatively non-volatile solid-state rocket fuel. The DF-26c can be fueled quickly and covertly — in a way that wouldn't tip off western intelligence agencies as quickly or as obviously as launch preparations for other, earlier Chinese ballistic missiles.

Strategy Page also notes much of China's longer-range arsenal has various problems with age, maintenance, or general reliability. The DF-26C has apparently been in service for several years prior to official confirmation of its existence, and it represents a general improvement over its predecessors.

Most importantly, the entire DF-26 series can strike beyond the "second island chain," a Chinese phrase for the islands on the outer edge of the disputed South China Sea, like the Japanese-claimed Senkaku, or even the Philippines. As this last 2013 video from China's Hubei Television demonstrates, that range includes Guam as well:

Of course, there's no indication China has any intention of unleashing a rocket barrage at one of the most important U.S. Naval bases in the Pacific. But high-tech mid-range weapons like the DF-26c are part of a Chinese defense strategy aimed at modernizing its ballistic arsenal while deterring overly aggressive U.S. moves in its backyard, an approach explained in a 2013 Congressional Research Service Report.

Like the near-collision over the South China Sea, the DF-26c is a reminder of the complications of the U.S.'s ongoing pivot to Asia. The U.S. is focusing military and diplomatic assets on what policymakers believe will become the most important region in the world — while leaving itself open to frequent and potentially hazardous confrontation with the world's rising superpower in the process.

SEE ALSO: China is developing some alarming high-tech weapons systems

Join the conversation about this story »

Seconds after lifting off from a launch facility in Alaska, the military destroyed a prototype hypersonic weapon because of an unexplained anomaly.

The Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 or HTV2, developed for DARPA and designed to destroy targets anywhere on Earth within one hour, has been in testing for about 5 years. 

This video originally appeared on Slate Video. Watch More: slate.com/video

Jim Festante is an actor/writer in Los Angeles and regular video contributor to Slate. He is the author of the Image Comics miniseries The End Times of Bram and Ben.

Follow Slate: On YouTube

Join the conversation about this story »

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A Pentagon program that distributes military surplus gear to local law enforcement allows even departments that the Justice Department has censured for civil rights violations to apply for and get lethal weaponry.

That lack of communication between two Cabinet agencies adds to questions about a program under review in the aftermath of the militarized police response to protesters in Ferguson, Missouri.

The Pentagon, which provides the free surplus military equipment, says its consultation with the Justice Department will be looked at as the government reviews how to prevent high-powered weaponry from flowing to the untrustworthy.

The Justice Department has opened civil rights investigations into the practices of some 20 police departments in the past five years, with the Ferguson force the latest. The investigations sometimes end in negotiated settlements known as consent decrees that mandate reforms. Yet being flagged as problematic by Washington does not bar a police department from participating in the program.

"Given the fact that they're under a consent decree it would make sense that the Department of Defense and Department of Justice coordinate on any such requests, (but) that is currently not the state," said Jim Bueermann, who heads the nonprofit Police Foundation.

At a Senate hearing this month, Alan Estevez, a Defense Department official who oversees the program, acknowledged that consultation with the Justice Department was "lacking" and he said that would be reviewed. Under questioning, he acknowledged the Pentagon does not take federal civil rights investigations into account in shipping out weapons, but that could change.

"We need to do a better job there," he said.

The Los Angeles Police Department received multiple shipments, totaling some 1,680 M16 assault rifles, under the Pentagon program, even while the department was under the watch of a federal monitor and had been accused of poor practices, government records show. The LAPD entered into a court-supervised agreement with the Justice Department in 2001 after investigators accused it of a pattern of excessive force, false arrests and unreasonable searches.

In Warren, Ohio, the police department in 2012 reached a settlement with the Justice Department to resolve an investigation into a pattern of excessive force and illegal searches. The department, which expects to have nearly 70 officers soon, recently ordered 30 M16 rifles as part of the program, Police Chief Eric Merkel said.

"We don't have an issue here with brandishing firearms and shooting people. That's not the reason the Department of Justice came in here to begin with," Merkel said. "I think the public reasonably expects their police department to be armed with a level that at least matches what they might be coming up against."

A 2001 Justice Department memorandum of agreement with the Washington, D.C., police found a pattern of excessive force over the prior decade. Several years later, when the department remained under the oversight of an independent monitor, it received 500 assault rifles from the military, a spokeswoman said.

The Pentagon program was authorized by Congress in 1990 to help fight drugs, with terrorism-fighting a more recent objective.

The Defense Department views the program, which has handed out more than $5.1 billion in military property since it started, primarily as a way to get rid of equipment it no longer needs. Equipment, much of it nontactical gear such as sleeping bags and filing cabinets, is provided first-come, first-served. Law enforcement officials say the military gear can save lives and keep officers safe in dangerous situations such as standoffs with heavily armed suspects and natural disasters.

But images of police responding to Ferguson protesters with tear gas, armored vehicles and in riot gear raised new scrutiny about who was getting the equipment and whether law enforcement agencies were receiving proper training.

The Defense Logistics Agency, a Pentagon branch that reviews the applications, looks at the department's justification for its request and ensures that administrative requirements are met, DLA spokeswoman Michelle McCaskill said. The agency has denied 26 percent of requests during the current budget year, which ends this month. The agency says state coordinators play an important role in approving police departments from within their states.

"Bottom line is they just don't say 'we want it' and they get it. There is a vetting process," McCaskill said.It's hard to determine exactly how much tactical equipment was received by a single police department because the federal government releases only aggregate totals by county.

In Los Angeles, where the consent decree formally concluded last year, Deputy Chief Michael Downing said the department's Police Commission is informed of such acquisitions and updated on operations where such tactical equipment is used. The commission is an independent civilian oversight board whose watchdog role was emphasized under the consent decree.

The M16s received by the LAPD were converted from fully automatic, three-round burst weapons to single action AR-15s and provided to patrol officers, Downing said.

Downing, who heads the department's counterterrorism and special operations bureau, said such equipment was critical given the threats faced especially in major urban areas. He said he wouldn't limit police departments under consent decrees from receiving gear.

"I'd just ask the hard questions and make sure before the equipment is even utilized that they have well thought out protocols, training and policies in place," he said.

Some also say a consent decree should have no bearing on a department's ability to receive tactical gear, especially since the problems that led to the federal review may be unrelated to weapon use. The bigger question is how the equipment's used, when and under what circumstances, said Chuck Wexler, head of the Police Executive Research Forum.

But to Peter Bibring, a staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern California, it should not get to that point.

"One arm of the federal government is restricting the departments based on a history of constitutional violations, and the other arm is feeding them heavy weapons. That's absurd," he said.

Join the conversation about this story »

Considered almost unbeatable in the air-to-air role, the F-22 successfully debuted in combat, taking part in airstrikes against ISIS targets. But what if the F-22 found a fourth-generation opponent?

Even though we don’t know many details about them, missions flown by the F-22 Raptor over Syria marked the combat debut of the stealth jet.

As already explained, the radar-evading planes conducted airstrikes against ISIS ground targets in what (considering the fifth-generation plane’s capabilities) were probably so-called "swing-role" missions: the stealth jets flew ahead of the rest of the strike package to cover the other attack planes, dropped their Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) on designated targets, and escorted the package on the way back.

Considering it could not carry external fuel tanks (to keep a low radar signature), the F-22s were refueled at least two or three times to make it to North Syria and back to the UAE, flying a mission most probably exceeding the six-to-seven-hour flying time.

Raptor’s stealthiness is maintained by storing weapons in internal bays capable of accomodating 2x AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles, some AIM-120C AMRAAM air-to-air missiles (the number depending on the configuration), as well as 2x 1,000 pound GBU-32 JDAM or 8x GBU-39 small-diameter bombs: in this way the Raptor can dominate the airspace above the battlefield while performing an OCA (Offensive Counter Air) role attacking air and ground targets. Moreover, its two powerful Pratt & Whitney F-119-PW-100 engines give the fighter the ability to accelerate past the speed of sound without using the afterburners (the so-called supercruise) and TV (Thrust Vectoring), which can be extremely useful, in certain conditions, to put the Raptor in the proper position to score a kill.

All these capabilities have made the F-22 almost invincible (at least on paper). Indeed, a single Raptor during one of its first training sorties was able to kill eight F-15s in a mock air-to-air engagement, well before they could see it.

These results were achieved also thanks to the specific training programs that put F-22 pilots against the best US fighter jocks to improve their abilities to use the jet’s sophisticated systems, make the most out of sensor fusion, and decide when and how to execute the correct tactic.

The Raptor has a huge advantage against its adversaries as demonstrated by the F-22’s incredible kill ratio against USAF Red Air (which play as enemy air forces during exercises) and its F-16s and F-15s, during the exercises undertaken in the past decade. For instance, during exercise Noble Edge in Alaska in June 2006, a few F-22s were able to down 108 adversaries with no losses, while during the 2007 edition of the same exercise, they brought their record to 144 simulated kills.

In its first Red Flag participation, in February 2007, the Raptor was able to establish air dominance rapidly and with no losses.

As reported by Dave Allport and Jon Lake in a story that appeared on Air Force Monthly magazine, during an Operational Readiness Inspection (ORI) in 2008, the F-22s scored 221 simulated kills without a single loss.

Still, when outnumbered and threatened by F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s, in a simulated WVR (Within Visual Range) dogfight, the F-22 is not invincible.

Apparently, along with the Rafale, one aircraft that proved to be a real threat for the F-22 is the Eurofighter Typhoon: During the 2012 Red Flag-Alaska, the German Eurofighters not only held their own, but reportedly achieved several kills on the Raptors.

Even though we don’t know anything about the ROE (Rules Of Engagement) set for those training sorties and, at the same time, the outcome of those mock air-to-air combat is still much debated (as there are different accounts of those simulated battles), the “F-22 vs. Typhoon at RF-A” story raised some questions about the threat posed to the Raptor by advanced, unstealthy, fourth-generation fighter jets.

In fact, even though these aircraft are not stealth, Typhoons are equipped with Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) systems and IRST (the Infra-Red Search and Track), two missing features on Raptors.

The Typhoon’s HMD is called Helmet Mounted Symbology System (HMSS). Just like the American JHMCS (Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System), which is integrated in the US F-15C/D, F-16 Block 40 and 50, and F-18C/D/E/F, HMSS provides the essential flight and weapon aiming information through line-of-sight imagery. Information imagery (including aircraft’s airspeed, altitude, weapons status, aiming etc.) are projected on the visor (the HEA — Helmet Equipment Assembly — for the Typhoon), enabling the pilot to look out in any direction with all the required data always in his field of vision.

The F-22 Raptor is not equipped with a similar system (the project to implement it was axed following 2013 budget cuts). The main reason for not using it on the stealth jet is that it was believed neither an HMD, nor HOBS (High Off-Boresight) weapons that are fired using these helmets, were needed because no opponents would get close enough to be engaged with an AIM-9X in a cone more than 80 degrees to either side of the nose of the aircraft.

Sure, but the risk of coming to close range with an opponent is still high, and at distances up to 50 kilometers an aircraft equipped with an IRST (Infra-Red Search and Track) system, which can detect the IR signature of an enemy fighter (that’s why Aggressors at Red Flag carry IRST pods), could even be able to find a stealthy plane “especially if it is large and hot, like the F-22,″ as a Eurofighter pilot once said.

Summing up, the F-22 is and remains the most lethal air superiority fighter ever. Still, it lacks some nice features that could be useful to face hordes of enemy aircraft, especially if these include F-15s, Typhoons, Rafales, or, in the future, the Chinese J-20 and Russian PAK-FA.

David Cenciotti has contributed to this post.

NOW WATCH: A Hypersonic Weapon Designed To Reach Targets Anywhere Within One Hour Was Just Destroyed

SEE ALSO: The US Used F-22 Stealth Fighter Jets In Combat For The First Time Ever Last Night

Join the conversation about this story »

China’s military has conducted the first flight test of a new variant of one of its road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles in a sign that Beijing is increasing its strategic strike capability against the United States.

The test of a new DF-31B missile was conducted Sept. 25 from a missile test range in central China.

A Pentagon spokeswoman declined to provide details of the test.

“We continue to monitor China’s military modernization, including its missile tests,” Cynthia O. Smith, the spokeswoman, told the Washington Free Beacon.

No details of the missile test could be learned, but the test was believed to have been carried out from China’s Wuzhai test facility.

Nongovernment military analysts said the new missile likely is an increased-range or improved performance weapon, and possibly a multi-warhead version of the ICBM.

A Chinese military enthusiast website has identified the DF-31B as a mobile missile variant designed specifically for travel on rugged terrain or other difficult road conditions.

Mobile missiles are considered a greater strategic threat because tracking their location and targeting them in a conflict is very difficult. The missiles can be hidden in garages or caves to avoid detection by satellites and other sensors.

China has made clear in its state-run media that its nuclear forces are being developed for use against the United States. The Global Times reported Oct. 28 that a submarine-launched missile attack on the United States would kill between 5 million and 12 million Americans.

The new DF-31B is the latest addition to China’s rapidly growing nuclear missile arsenal that includes older silo-based missiles and five other road-mobile missiles. They include the long-range DF-31, DF-31A and DF-41 ICBMs, intermediate-range DF-26Cs, and medium-range DF-21s—a missile the Chinese have developed into a dual, nuclear-conventional weapon that includes an anti-ship variant. A DF-21 variant also is believed to be used as China’s anti-satellite missile system.

China has some 40 DF-31s and DF-31As, and the DF-41, which is expected to carry multiple-nuclear warheads, is said to be near deployment.

China also has deployed new submarine-launched missiles called the JL-2 that are based on new missile-firing nuclear-powered submarines that the US Navy has said will begin their first sea patrols this year.

China also is working a high-technology hypersonic strike vehicle that is launched atop a missile and travels at extremely high speeds along the edge of the earth’s atmosphere. The glide vehicle is being designed to deliver a nuclear warhead through US strategic missile defenses.

“They have an extraordinary selection of cruise missiles, and a ballistic missile force that they developed,” Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of Naval Operations, told a security forum in August, adding that in a future conflict, China’s missiles pose the most serious threat.

“If [a conflict is] in their backyard, I’m a little worried about their ballistic missile [force] because of its reach,” Greenert said.

China in late July conducted a flight test of a DF-31A, the fourth known flight test of that new missile in the past two years.

The latest missile test, which was not announced by the Chinese government, highlights Beijing’s largely secret strategic nuclear forces buildup.

Rick Fisher, an analyst who closely monitors the Chinese military, said the testing of a new DF-31 variant should be a worry for U.S. security officials.

“The emergence of a third version of the DF-31 raises the question of whether there is a multiple warhead version,” said Fisher, with the International Assessment and Strategy Center.

Fisher said the DF-31B also might be a silo-based missile or one designed specifically for China’s so-called “Great Underground Wall” — a network of 3,000 miles of tunnels and underground nuclear facilities that was first revealed several years ago.

“China has a track record of using warhead systems on multiple missile programs,” he said. “The advent of multiple warheads on the DF-41 may indicate new versions of the DF-31 may be so equipped. If real, this would accelerate China’s warhead growth.”

The testing of a third DF-31 variant, along with Moscow’s nuclear weapons modernization program “places greater pressure on Washington to proceed with modernizing America’s nuclear deterrent,” Fisher said.

Mark Stokes, a specialist on Chinese strategic forces, said the new ICBM variant could be a technically improved weapon.

“A DF-31B would most likely be an incremental, phased improvement on the DF-31A,” said Stokes, with the Project 2049 Institute.

“As a matter of PLA defense industrial process, R&D on an improved variant would have begun after the DF-31A entered full rate production,” Stokes said.

The Pentagon’s most recent annual report on the Chinese military states “The Second Artillery continues to modernize its nuclear forces by enhancing its silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and adding more survivable mobile delivery systems.”

“In recent years, the road-mobile, solid-propellant [DF-31A] ICBM has entered service,” the report said, adding that “China also is developing a new road-mobile ICBM known as the Dong Feng-41 (DF-41), possibly capable of carrying multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRV).”

SEE ALSO: China and the US are in a race to develop the world's first aircraft carrier-borne stealth jets

Join the conversation about this story »

As the Obama administration's plans for raising a moderate Syrian opposition force become clearer, its approach seems to center on a lengthy recruitment, training, and deployment program initially dedicated to defense against the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS).

If carried out, this plan promises a long delay before significant forces are on the battlefield. It would also limit their potential effectiveness in the near to midterm and perhaps commit them to a protracted enterprise in which defeat is likely.

The administration's concept is consistent with its fixation on terrorism as the heart of the problem in Syria, and its ill-starred relations with the armed opposition.

Faced with the complexity of diverse rebel forces on the ground, unwilling to accept more than minimal risk in supporting them, and focused on worst-case costs and consequences, it is advancing a program with limited prospects.

Reality in Syria

The administration's approach reportedly includes these basic elements:

• Recruiting personnel from Syrian refugee populations
• Providing them with basic military training in Saudi Arabia or perhaps Jordan
• Creating a starter force of 5,000 personnel, with initial deployments inside of six months and additional increments to follow
• Using initial deployments solely to defend rebel-held areas against ISIS, with offensive forces ready in eighteen months

Along the way, a command structure for the force will be created with some connection to a political opposition entity.

This limited approach has many potential problems. The first is its extended timeline. Opposition, regime, and ISIS military activities in Syria have their own drivers and rhythms, which in turn lead to near-term changes on the battlefield, so a program that will not yield significant results for months carries great risk.

For example, several major events could occur within six months or so, before the first full increment of 5,000 "defenders" appears on the battlefield; these include the isolation and perhaps fall of Aleppo city to regime forces, the conquest of northern Aleppo province by the so-called "Islamic State," an ISIS advance toward Damascus, and the rout of rebel forces in northern Hama province through separate regime and ISIS operations.

None of these developments is certain, but they are all possible given the current situation and would be very damaging if not fatal to rebel prospects in Syria. Even if one discounts such scenarios, no one -- apparently including within the administration -- expects ISIS to be defeated or even significantly degraded by the time U.S.-trained forces arrive.

In short, the Obama administration's defensive force could well come too late to play a meaningful role.

Second, creating a force of defenders against ISIS is not consistent with the nature of the current military situation. The rebels are fighting on two fronts, against ISIS and the regime, and the latter seems like the more important priority for them -- and indeed for the future of Syria.

Moreover, in their war against the regime, the rebels are conducting both defensive operations (e.g., in Aleppo, Damascus, Hama) and offensive operations (Quneitra, Deraa). They cannot and will not ignore this part of the war, so Washington should not ignore it either. The nature of the war in Syria certainly complicates the administration's "Iraq first" and "terrorism always" strategy, but that is the messy realty of the situation, and the U.S. approach must face up to it.

More specifically, training initial units for purely defensive operations would limit their potential to seize ground when opportunities arise, raising concerns about this limitation becoming engrained among moderate rebels in the longer term. Syrian battlefields are often fluid, at least tactically, with forces rapidly shifting from attack to defense and back.

No one in Syria fights purely on the defensive. The history of combat against the regime and ISIS suggests that opportunities to seize territory will present themselves either in the course of operations or as enemy forces redeploy or withdraw.

In the past, the rebels have taken advantage of such situations to expand their areas of control. Yet press reporting indicates that the administration's plan would not produce appropriately prepared offensive forces for at least eighteen months, if at all.

Third, the contemplated size of the force to be raised seems inconsistent with the tasks at hand. ISIS probably deploys ten to fifteen thousand personnel in Syria, in addition to allied local forces. Committing an initial force of less than 5,000 would mean one of two things: either the trained rebels will be spread thin and thus vulnerable to destruction by concentrated enemy forces, or some areas will be left vulnerable to ISIS and regime advances.

In either case, failure could prove disastrous for the force's future and those it is tasked with defending. The administration has refused to consider putting U.S. forces on the ground to assist the rebels, and air intervention alone would not necessarily preclude their failure.

Other uncertainties could create problems as well. For example, it is not clear what types of weapons will be provided to the force. If it is equipped solely with small arms (assault rifles, machine guns, light antitank weapons, light mortars), its capabilities will be very limited, even in a purely defensive role.

All forces in Syria employ a wide range of weapons, including significant numbers of heavy weapons (tanks, artillery, mortars, antiaircraft guns, vehicle-mounted heavy machine guns). Lightly armed units would be ineffective against such opponents and likely chased from the battlefield in short order.

How the U.S.-built force would be used and supported in operations is also unclear. As indicated above, the line between defensive and offensive actions in Syria is quite flexible. How could Washington enforce such a line in practice, especially at the tactical level and without U.S. personnel present to determine and shape what is going on? And what happens if U.S.-trained forces suffer reverses on the battlefield?

Consistent military success in Syria has been elusive for all parties, and at some point U.S.-backed forces would likely fail even if constrained to a purely defensive role.

Recommendations

The administration's current train-and-equip plan would create moderate rebel units with limitations destined to frustrate their development and presage their failure if committed to serious combat. Weak, halfheartedly supported units probably cannot succeed on Syria's Darwinian battlefields; they would more likely become prey for the formidable predators operating there.

Given that events in Syria do not necessarily proceed according to the U.S. timetable, the most promising answer is to build effective moderate forces sooner rather than later using the vetting that has already occurred.

This means incorporating existing moderate units into a structure that takes advantage of their numbers, their presence on key battlefields, and their experience in fighting the regime and ISIS. Washington would then enhance its train-and-equip program for these units, especially by providing antitank, antiaircraft, and light artillery/mortar systems.

Finally, such forces should not be constrained to a defensive role against ISIS -- they should be expected, even encouraged, to fight the regime as well. They will have successes and failures, but the United States would not "own" them in the same sense it would with a force built from scratch.

And there would be risks, as there always are when working with irregulars: unauthorized weapons transfers, criminal activity, violations of the rules of warfare, and so forth. But this kind of force is more likely to be deployed in a shorter timeframe, and to be more effective on the battlefield against ISIS and the regime.

Jeffrey White is a defense fellow at The Washington Institute and a former senior defense intelligence officer.

Join the conversation about this story »

A recent video from the YouTube channel Vickers Tactical shows Green Berets firing heavy weaponry in super slow-motion. 

The Green Berets, otherwise known as the US Army Special Forces, are a special operations force tasked with reconnaissance, counter-terror, and unconventional warfare-related missions. The video was filmed at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, the home of US Army airborne forces and Special Forces, as well as US Army Forces Command and US Army Reserve Command. 

We have highlighted some of the most hypnotic segments of the video through a series of GIFs below. They show what heavy projectiles look like in flight, and give an idea of just how much firepower these weapons can pack.

The Javelin missile launcher is a "fire-and-forget" system in which the missile can lock onto its target for improved accuracy. The weapon is routinely used against armored targets, such as tanks.

The RPG-7 is an anti-tank weapon originally created by the Russians.

The force of the launch from an M3 Carl Gustav 84 mm recoilless rifle creates a huge plume of dust rising from the ground.

The M3 is used for engaging bunkers and vehicles.

Green Berets also train on MK32s, a handheld grenade launcher that can fire all six of its rounds in 3 seconds.

For engaging enemies behind cover, Green Berets make use of the MK47 40mm grenade launcher which features a ballistic computer and a laser rangefinder. 

 Now here's everything at full speed.

You can watch the entire Vickers Tactical video below. 

SEE ALSO: Putin's elite counter-terror troops have an insane training regimen

SEE ALSO: The craziest small arms maneuvers by South Korean SWAT, in 9 GIFs

Join the conversation about this story »

Russia is sending additional military forces toward the border with eastern Ukraine, including units equipped with ballistic missiles, as part of Moscow’s ongoing destabilization effort in support of pro-Russian rebels.

US officials with access to intelligence reports said one Russian military unit equipped with short-range ballistic missiles was detected this week near eastern Ukraine, where Russia has launched a destabilization program following its military annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea in March.

The military movements coincided with the an unusual number of flights last week by Russian strategic nuclear bombers and aircraft along Europe’s northern coasts in a what NATO’s military commander called strategic “messaging” toward the West.

“My opinion is that they’re messaging us,” Gen. Phillip Breedlove, the commander, told reporters at the Pentagon this week. “They’re messaging us that they are a great power and that they have the ability to exert these kinds of influences in our thinking.”

The bomber flights included three days of paired Tu-95 bomber flights that were to have circumnavigated Europe from the north but instead were halted near Portugal.

US officials said Russia deployed several Il-78 refueling tankers in Egypt that were to resupply the bombers during flights over the Mediterranean, but those flights were scrapped for unknown reasons.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg expressed concerns about Russian military moves in Ukraine during remarks to reporters Tuesday in Brussels.

“Recently we are also seeing Russian troops moving closer to the border with Ukraine, and Russia continues to support the separatists by training them, by providing equipment, and supporting them also by having special forces, Russian special forces, inside the eastern parts of Ukraine,” Stoltenberg said.

Other officials said both intelligence and social media reports in recent days revealed an increase in Russian deployments.

The missile systems being deployed were described as conventionally armed, short-range ballistic missiles, multiple launch rocket systems, and BM-21 Grad multiple rocker launchers.

Additionally, Russian military forces are moving towed artillery pieces closer to the border.

One official said the display of military power is part of Moscow’s effort to reinforce “separatists” seeking to carve out a pro-Russian enclave in Eastern Ukraine.

The Russian “Spetsnaz” or special forces commandos are already inside the country, but the ground forces as of Wednesday appeared to be staging at the border.

Russian military forces in Ukraine number around 300 commandos. “These are not fighting formations. These are formations and specialists that are in there doing training and equipping of the separatist forces,” Breedlove said.

The buildup is either part of a plan for military escalation, or a coordinated pressure tactic by Moscow to force Ukraine to make concessions to the rebels, officials said.

Rebel groups in the region have made repeated threats to take control of the key southeastern Ukrainian port of Mariupol and other territory unless the Ukrainian government agrees to make changes in the current separation line.

“The build up may just be a pressure tactic to force such concessions, or it may presage further escalation,” one official said.

Rebels in eastern Ukraine recently held elections that Ukraine and NATO dismissed as illegal. New charges were raised in Kiev Wednesday about violations of a peace agreement reached in Belarus in September.

Breedlove said Monday there was no “huge change” in Russian deployments. Currently about seven battalion task groups are stationed near the border with Ukraine.

“Some of those formations have moved closer to the border,” he said. “We believe that was probably to bring some pressure on and make sure that the elections went according to the separatist plans; we’ll look now to see if they pull back from the border into their previous border locations.”

“We have now realistically entered the phase of a ‘frozen conflict,’” Yury Yakimenko, a political analyst at Ukraine’s Razumkov political research center told Reuters. The term frozen conflict has been applied to other former Soviet Republics where separatists are being backed by Russian forces.

Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is part of a program by Russian President Vladimir Putin to gain control or hegemony over former Soviet bloc states described as the “near abroad.”

Putin is seeking to restore Russian power with territorial seizures, along with a large-scale nuclear and conventional forces buildup.

Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen M. Lainez said Russian forces and equipment remain on Ukraine’s border and on Ukrainian territory in violation of international law. “We again call on Russian authorities and the separatists they back to abide by their commitments under the Sept. 5 ceasefire agreement and the Sept. 19 implementing agreement,” she said.

Breedlove said the Russians in the past have conducted small-scale bomber flights.

“And what you saw this past week was a larger, more complex formation of aircraft carrying out a little deeper and, I would say, a little bit more provocative flight path,” he said. “And so it is a concern.”

The flights are destabilizing and “problematic,” Breedlove said.

Stoltenberg, the NATO secretary general, also voiced concerns about the Russian bomber flights.

“When it comes to the increased Russian military activity, both in the air but also along the borders of Ukraine, I think that what we see is, especially when it comes to increased air activity of Russian planes, is that they are showing strength, and what we are doing is what we are supposed to do: we are intercepting the Russian planes, whether it is in the Atlantic Sea or the Baltic Sea or in the Black Sea,” he said.

Breedlove said he has discussed with US military chiefs the idea of moving additional troops and supplies closer to Russia as a result of “increased pressure that we feel in Eastern Europe now and because of the assurance measures that we are taking in the Baltics, in Poland, in Romania.”

“I believe there is a requirement for rotational forces in the future until we see the current situation begin to normalize,” he said.

Breedlove said the halt in the conflict in Ukraine has been “pretty much a cease-fire in name only.”

“There continue to be sporadic engagements in and around the cease-fire zone,” he said. “And the second thing that I would say that has changed is we have seen a general trend towards a hardening of this line of demarcation and much more softening of the actual Ukraine-Russia border.”

Russia’s border with Ukraine in the east is open and completely porous. As a result, Russian military equipment is flowing back and forth the border

“Russia continues to resupply the Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine,” Breedlove said.

SEE ALSO: Putin may just be winging it

Join the conversation about this story »

The Navy SEAL who claims to have shot Al Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden on May 2, 2011 and is speaking with Fox News later this week has revealed his identity to The Washington Post.

Robert O'Neill reportedly earned 52 commendations over 16 years in the Navy. He was involved in the 2009 raid on the Mearsk Alabama, the event that inspired the film "Captain Philips." And he now says he was one of the SEALs who shot the most wanted terrorist alive.

The SEALs have some of the highest-pressure jobs in the entire US military and work under almost incomprehensible physical and mental strain. They're better prepared and better trained than just about any other special operations force on earth.

In No Easy Day, his book about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, former SEAL Matt Bissonnette talks about what it takes just to get ready for a combat deployment.

He recalls meeting at SEAL Team 6 HQ in Norfolk, Va. before jumping into the fight. On the day before leaving for the Bin Laden operation, Bissonnette asked a more experienced SEAL what he should bring along.

The senior SEAL stopped, looked at his new teammate and said: "Dude, what do you think you need to bring for deployment? Load it ... Bring what you think you need."

The following list is what Bissonnette brought along.

This post was originally written by Geoffrey Ingersoll and Robert Johnson.

Body armor plates are able to stop up to three AK-47 rounds — but are only guaranteed to stop one.

Some SEALs go "slick" and remove their plates, depending on different scenarios.

Depending on how far they're traveling and the type of mission they're engaged in, SEALs may just not wear them.

In No Easy Day, Bissonnette says to a buddy: "If I get shot, don't tell my mom I wasn't wearing these plates."

Body armor plate carriers offer protection and are handy for storing all manner of necessary items.

SEALs will surely have one of these — they help carry a few of the next 17 things on this list.

Helmets like this will stop shrapnel, but have also been known to deflect sniper rounds.

The "brain bucket:" No matter what, every soldier wears one.

Even the tiniest fragment or the smallest piece of high-velocity hot metal can enter through soft tissue and puncture your brain, with fellow troops left guessing as to what caused your death. In combat, your life literally depends on wearing one of these.

Nations are becoming increasingly concerned over the threat of killer robots.

In Geneva, 118 nations present at a UN conference agreed about the need to tackle the future threat of these robotic killing systems, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW).

The nations at the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) conference agreed to further talks in April 2015 over the development of the "lethal autonomous weapons systems." Although no single country has yet developed the technological capacity for killer robots, it's possible they could exist in the near future. 

“By continuing the talks, countries are acknowledging the many concerns raised by autonomous warfare, but the technology is moving faster than the international response,” Mary Wareham, arms advocacy director at HRW, wrote in a press release. 

In March, leading roboticist Illah Nourbakhsh warned NPR that the development of autonomous robots could easily lead to military applications. 

Hypothetically, if researchers built a robot that could climb a ladder or operate power tools, "that robot can manipulate an AK-47. That means that robot can manipulate the controls of all the conventional military machines as well," Nourbakhsh said. 

The CCW's modus operandi is to"ban or restrict the use of specific types of weapons that are considered to cause unnecessary or unjustifiable suffering to combatants or to affect civilians indiscriminately." These weapons include mines, blinding lasers, and killer robots. 

Among the 118 nations involved in the CCW are the US, China, Russia, South Korea, the UK, and Israel. 

One of the main concerns over the development of killer robots is the concern that humans, after becoming disengaged from direct conflict, would become comfortable with the idea of killing.

Former U.S. commander General Stanley McChrystal told BBC's Today Program, "There’s a danger that something that feels easy to do and without risk to yourself, almost antiseptic to the person shooting, doesn’t feel that way at the point of impact."

The next round of talks within the CCW will be held in Geneva from April 13-17, 2015. 

SEE ALSO: The moral implications of robots that kill

Join the conversation about this story »

A recent LiveLeak video shows a variety of Russian artillery weapons firing in ultimate slow motion.

Many of these weapons have been used during the current war in Ukraine between Russian-back separatists and loyalists to the Ukrainian national government.  

We've highlighted some of the most astonishing segments of the video through GIFs, which show what heavy projectiles look like after being launched and give an idea of just how much firepower these pieces of artillery can pack.

The 2A36 Giatsint-B is a Russian towed field gun.

Originally created by the Soviets, the weapon can fire effectively at ranges of more than 19 miles. 

While the 2A36 fires shells, the BM-21 Grad is a mounted multiple-rocket launcher that can launch two rounds a second. 

Grad rockets can be fired in a barrage. Russian-backed separatists have acquired Grad launchers and have used them to pound Ukrainian government positions in the east of the country.

The rebels have also made frequent use of the T-12 anti-tank gun. Though effective, the weapon is relatively old and ceased to be the main anti-tank gun of the Eastern Bloc in the 1980s. 

The 2S19 Msta-S is a self-propelled piece of armored artillery. Both sides in the conflict in Ukraine have used this weapon, which can fire rounds more than 18 miles. 

Like the Grad launcher, the TOS-1 is a multiple-rocket launcher. However, the TOS-1 is made of a 30-barrel launch system mounted on a T-72 tank chassis. It can launch two rounds a second. 

Ukraine has said for months the presence of artillery in the rebels' arsenal suggests they're being armed by Russia. However, the rebels and Russia deny these allegations, contending that the weapons were captured from Ukrainian soldiers and military bases. 

Regardless, both sides have been accused of recklessly using artillery while shelling enemy positions. 

You can watch the entire LiveLeak video below.

SEE ALSO: Putin's Elite Counter-Terror Troops Have An Insane Training Regimen

Join the conversation about this story »

US Vice President Joe Biden is due to land in Kiev and one topic that the Ukrainians will surely bring up is whether the US will provide weapons to fend off a Russian incursion.

After all, Poroshenko asked for weapons when he spoke in front of the US Congress in September when he famously declared, “blankets [and] night-vision goggles are also important.

But one cannot win a war with blankets.” He went home with more blankets. Surely he’ll again bring the issue of up with Biden, especially as Russia arms the separatists and rumors swirl of a rebel offensive.

Already anticipating such a discussion, Moscow has stated that giving Kiev weapons would further destabilize the situation. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich warned against “a major change in policy of the [U.S.] administration in regard to the conflict” in Ukraine, adding that sending arms would be “a direct violation of agreements reached, including [agreements reached] with the participation of the U.S.”

Now putting aside the sheer cynicism of such statements, considering Russia has itself destabilized Ukraine by supplying the separatists with weapons, Lukashevich is sending a clear warning: arming Ukraine would certainly cause the Russians to double down and treat the conflict as the proxy war with the West it already thinks it is.

This war is not one Ukraine can ultimately win. Weapons will only exacerbate the bloodletting, further crystallize the new “iron curtain” in eastern Ukraine, and perhaps even drawn the United States into another conflict it neither wants nor needs. Arming Ukraine would be a disaster.

There is already evidence that some of the United States supplied “meals ready to eat” ended up being sold on black market websites. Could American weapons see a similar fate?

Yet there’s a chorus of politicians and pundits who think arming Ukraine is a grand idea.

Over the last few days, the White House has been getting Congressional pressure to supply Ukraine with weapons.

In a joint statement on Tuesday, Sen. John McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham said in the joint statement that “The Obama Administration’s policy in Ukraine effectively amounts to an arms embargo on victims of aggression,” and that “the United States and the European Union must provide Ukraine with the arms and related military and intelligence support that its leaders have consistently sought and desperately need.”

McCain and Graham essentially want to turn the conflict into an open proxy war between the United States and Russia. “Providing Ukrainians with the ability to defend themselves,” they wrote, “would impose a far greater cost on Putin than he has paid thus far.”

Pundits have also been weighing on the issue. Writing in the LA Times, Bennett Ramber, who served in the State Department’s Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs under George H.W. Bush, argues that the United States has an obligation to defend Ukraine based on the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. He writes:

History provides two other options: Sit back, pout and watch, the strategy Washington applied to Soviet interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The approach concedes Ukraine as part of Moscow’s sphere in influence or more.

Or the U.S. can bleed the separatists and Russian intervenors by providing Ukraine with lethal weapons, and not just nonlethal aid, repeating the successful strategy the U.S. applied to Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation.

“Taking the second option, arming Ukraine, he continues, “would not cross World War I’s mobilization threshold but still overcome the appeasement policy of pre-World War II, and thus presents a prudent path giving Ukraine a better chance to defend itself. It also would restore Washington’s credibility that it will go to bat for countries that, under its imprimatur, give up the bomb and find a tiger — or in this case, a bear — at the gates threatening its survival.”

In an op-ed in USA Today, Ilan Berman, the Vice President of the American Foreign Policy Council, argues that time is running out to take action and arm Ukraine.

“The window to do so is narrow indeed. Congress has mere weeks to conduct real work ahead of the coming winter recess. And with other pressing issues, such as a reauthorization of the federal budget, now on the legislative agenda, there is a real danger that foreign affairs matters (Ukraine among them) will get crowded out of the deliberations completely. Should that happen, it would be nothing short of a geopolitical victory for Russia, and a moral and operational defeat for Ukraine’s beleaguered pro-Western government.”

Indeed, Congress is ready to arm Ukraine. It just has to vote. There are two bills before it that have broad bi-partisan support: the Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014 and the Ukraine Security Assistance Act of 2014.

The first, which has already passed the Foreign Relations Committee, allows for the provision of “defense articles, defense services, and training to the Government of Ukraine for the purpose of countering offensive weapons and reestablishing the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, including anti-tank and anti-armor weapons; crew weapons and ammunition; counter-artillery radars to identify and target artillery batteries; fire control, range finder, and optical and guidance and control equipment; tactical troop-operated surveillance drones, and secure command and communications equipment.”

The latter provides “Ukraine with appropriate intelligence and other information to determine the location, strength, and capabilities of the military and intelligence forces of the Russian Federation located on Ukraine’s eastern border and within its territorial borders, including Crimea; and take steps to ensure that such intelligence information is protected from further disclosure.”

It’s unclear which way Obama would go if presented with these bills. It will be really hard for him to veto legislation that has such bi-partisan support. It just doesn’t happen to him very often.

But this doesn’t make arming Ukraine a good idea. First, it just demonstrates again that Congress only sees throwing guns at a problem is the only viable solution. After all, what do the politicians have to lose? They can all stand up, puff out their chests and say they were tough on Russia. Forget the Ukrainian citizens who will experience the full fury of an escalated conflict.

Second, Ukraine being as corrupt as it is, there are real concerns how many of these weapons will actually end up in soldiers’ hands and not pilfered and sold on the black market. There is already evidence that some of the United States supplied “meals ready to eat” ended up being sold on black market websites. Could American weapons see a similar fate?

Third, as I said above, this is a war Ukraine can’t win. Weapons won’t turn the tide of the war in Ukraine’s favor. Sure it will, as John McCain put it, “impose a far greater cost on Putin than he has paid thus far,” but presented with such a challenge Putin will surely double down and commit more to the rebels.

This would give Putin reason to push not only to Mariupol, Kharkiv, and Odessa, but perhaps to Kiev and beyond. He would not only dismember Ukraine, he would swallow it. Then what would the US do? It would either have to back down or commit more, sending the situation into a spiral downward to hell.

Fourth, given this year is the centennial of WWI, many have characterized the tensions between the US, the EU, and Russia as a recipe for another world war. Arming Ukraine has the potential to get that ball rolling. And from there who knows where things will end up.

I can understand the frustration many feel as they watch Russia flood the east with weapons. Sanctions work slow and don’t really exert the immediate necessary pressure. Also, it’s apparent that the Obama Administration doesn’t have a clear policy concerning Russia. Is it an adversary or enemy? How much does the US need Russia when it comes to Syria and Iran?

These questions don’t have clear answers. But throwing more weapons into the mix will only make things worse. The only answer is diplomacy, something both sides have yet to seriously consider. If the United States wants to do something and show its leadership, perhaps it’s time to set aside egos and bring everyone to the table for a serious hammering out of issues.

A first step would be to silence the hawks in Washington and the “war party” in Kiev.

SEE ALSO: Here are all the Russian weapons separatists are using in Ukraine

Join the conversation about this story »

The studio behind the latest title consulted soldiers and futurologists to build its vision of a war against private military contractors

The scene is exciting but implausible. It’s a shoot out on the Golden Gate bridge, taking place 45 years in the future. Soldiers wearing bionic exoskeletons leap over trucks, firing bizarre “directed energy” weapons that send out fatal force waves.

Drones patrol above, identifying and shooting at targets, one combatant throws a smart grenade that momentarily hovers in the air before locking onto an enemy and scorching in.

It is a sequence typical of the Call of Duty series, Activision’s billion-dollar shoot-’em-up cash cow. Since its arrival in 2003, the titles have relied on flashy hyper-violence, Michael Bay explosions and ludicrous plotlines.

The Call of Duty: Modern Warfare titles reveled in post-9/11 paranoia, inventing eastern European ultra nationalist groups and super weapons of mega destruction. The series has shifted 140m units.

Advanced Warfare looks like more of the same. It’s 2060 and a terrorist organisation named KVA has pulled off a global atrocity, detonating a series of nuclear power plants, and plunging the world into chaos. With nation states unable to re-build their armed forces, private military contractors are managing the fight back. But they have their own agendas.

The founder of the largest, Atlas, is Jonathan Irons, played with obvious relish by Kevin Spacey. He thinks he has a better plan for the future. He thinks of war as a marketplace and countries as corporations. He wants to launch a hostile takeover of the USA.

Rocket boosted exoskeletons? Private military organisations with imperialist leanings? It’s all nonsense right? Not according to Michael Condrey, co-founder of Sledgehammer Games, the studio behind Advanced Warfare.

Directed energy and other weapons of the “future”

Sledgehammer has used military advisors to ensure the authenticity of the weaponry. These people aren’t difficult to find or employ – primarily because many of them play Call of Duty. “We’ve been fortunate that the series has a lot of fans across military organisations, and within the entertainment industry,” says Condrey. “This draws a lot of interest, and a great deal of desire to help Call of Duty.

“Often, we are able to extend our network through existing relationships within the Call of Duty franchise. For example, we worked with Mark Bohl, writer of Hurt Locker, and were put in contact with his retired Navy Seal Team 6 adviser through shared contacts. Other times, we research experts in the field and reach out directly. Retired Delta Commander, Dalton Furty, is an example. We read his book, Kill Bin Laden, and made an inquiry on his interest and availability.”

The result is that every gun, vehicle and aircraft in the game has a basis in current weapons research – whether that’s the Breacher pump action directed energy shotgun or the XS1 Vulcan, effectively an airborne laser blaster.

“We wanted the game to be grounded and believable, but how do we do that if it’s set 50 years in the future?” says Condrey. “So we agreed with the designers, if you can’t point to R&D or a prototype, it can’t go in the game. At one point we had this concept for a teleportation grenade – you throw it, and where it lands, you teleport there. But it’s not in the game because it’s science fiction.”

However, pulsed energy, microwave, laser and sonic weapons have been in development for decades, and research is ongoing. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and other major manufacturers are all building systems. The North American market alone will be worth $10bn by 2020 according to MicroMarket Monitor.

Meanwhile, the exoskeletons worn by soldiers in the game, which players are able to upgrade with a range of performance-enhancing features, come from a more benign source. “We looked at how Daewoo, one of the biggest tech firms in Korea, has developed exoskeletons that are used in the ship yards – they allow dock workers to lift 500lbs. That blew my mind. OK, we don’t think that, in the near future, soldiers will be doing 20ft boost jumps like our exo does, but we do feel that 50 years from now … we’ve probably been conservative.”

The next threat to the USA

In addition to making projections on the state of future weaponry, the game's makers wanted to work with a plausible scenario. “Three years ago, right after we finished Modern Warfare 3, we started thinking about how to change Call of Duty,” Condrey says. “We brought in a lot of outside help – military advisers, futurologists - we got together with a scenario planner from the department of defense, who is active in the Pentagon. His job is to think about future threats and prepare ‘what if’ scenarios for the US government. So we asked him, what do you think will be the conflict of tomorrow?”

Apparently, the source quickly ruled out China (“he said it’s too big, it’ll eventually collapse under its own economic weight”), a resurgence of the Cold War with Russia, and a consolidation of emergent Islamic extremist states. Instead, the adviser predicted that the next threat to the security of the United States would come from a private military company. It may be some billion-dollar contract gone bad or a sudden tipping point in the ratio between national military and contracted forces.

“We thought that was fascinating and provocative,” says Condrey. “What happens when an organisation that’s built for profit has access to all the latest weapons and technology – an organisation that can operate outside of the Geneva Convention, that can be purchased by the highest bidder? What if that got out of control?

“This was around the time that Greece was collapsing economically, there were riots – and there was an understanding that, the reason PMCs have had such an opportunity to grow, is that funding a standing army is very expensive for a modern nation state. Why not outsource war? It’s better for PR – you don’t have to explain to parents why their kids are dying in battles on foreign soil.”

The team read up on modern PMCs. It researched the activities of well-known examples such as Blackwater, the controversial US company that won millions of dollars worth of contracts to provide security in post-war Iraq. Founder, Erik Prince, is surely a model for Jonathan Irons, especially after a series of congressional hearings over the company’s operations, and other wrangles with the US government.

The war on story

Call of Duty is a big, bloody spectacle of a game series; a gung-ho celebration of military might. For all its millions of fans, it has detractors that see it as all that’s wrong with the mainstream games industry – the obsession with gunfire and power. Should developers be mining real-world expertise for narrative authenticity? Is it right to draw on real-life conflicts and experiences so that players can shoot each other online with realistic assault rifles?

But then of course, Hollywood has been doing the same thing for years, employing military advisers like Dale Dye and Harry Humphries to add legitimacy, not just to worthy dramas, but to popcorn shootfests. The difference is that video games are still a young medium; they are viewed with suspicion. People worry about the effects they have, people worry about the suitability of an interactive medium to tell stories of war and tragedy.

Can Advanced Warfare shake up the series in narrative terms? Many of the Sledgehammer team came from making the respected and atmospheric sci-fi horror title Dead Space – they know how to tell an interactive story. They say they want to tell a good one here.

“We really looked at the narrative execution,” says Condrey. “Not just Kevin Spacey’s performance, but the whole story arc. I think there are moments that will be challenging."

“Right now, we’re all talking about this third golden age of television in the US – that inspires us. Games have long way to go to deliver on the emotional narratives we see in, say, Game of Thrones. We have to learn lessons there, we have to learn about emotional attachment to characters, provocative situations, loss. We need to make those a big part of video games.”

In the end, that would be a more impressive achievement than recreating any weapons system that military science has to offer.

This article originally appeared on guardian.co.uk

SEE ALSO: The military is closing in on powerful exoskeleton technology

SEE ALSO: The Army's 8-wheeled laser truck can burn mortars, drones right out of the sky

Join the conversation about this story »

CLEVELAND (Reuters) - A 12-year-old boy who was shot by police after he brandished a pellet gun at a Cleveland recreation center died on Sunday from his injuries, officials said.

The boy was identified as Tamir E. Rice, 12, of Cleveland by the Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner.

Rice was shot in the abdomen by a city officer at a playground on the city's west side on Saturday, said Timothy Kucharski, an attorney for the boy's family.

According to the recording of a 911 call, a witness at the Cudell Recreation Center park told the police dispatcher that he saw somebody with a pistol and he was pointing it at people.

The caller told the dispatcher that the gun was "probably fake." But he said that it was scaring people.

Officers responded and advised the boy to raise his hands, according to a police statement.

"The suspect did not comply with the officers' orders and reached to his waistband for the gun. Shots were fired and the suspect was struck in the torso," the statement said.

After a preliminary investigation, authorities said the gun Rice had was an airsoft-type replica gun resembling a semi-automatic pistol.

Airsoft weapons are realistic-looking guns used in play combat, and they usually shoot plastic pellets. Most are made with bright orange tips so that they aren't confused with real guns. Police said the orange safety indicator was removed from the replica gun Rice was holding.

The boy was taken to MetroHealth Hospital where he underwent surgery Saturday and remained in critical condition until his death early Sunday, Kucharski said. The death was confirmed by hospital spokesman Jonah Rosenblum.

The two officers involved in the incident were placed on administrative leave. One of them was treated at Fairview Hospital for an ankle injury.

The shooting followed another incident that shook the city. On Friday, Cleveland police said four people, including a 41-year-old pregnant woman, were shot and killed at a home on the city's east side. A 9-year-old girl was shot in the chest and was treated and released from a local hospital. 

(Editing by Fiona Ortiz, Frances Kerry and Eric Walsh)

SEE ALSO: The 2016 Republican Convention Will Be In Dallas Or Cleveland

Join the conversation about this story »