Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN) vessels conducted unsafe and unprofessional actions against U.S. Military ships by crossing the ships’ bows and sterns at close range while operating in international waters of the North Arabian Gulf in April of 2020. (U.S. Navy photo)
On July 28, 2020, the Iranian military conducted a kinetic offensive drill against a mock-up dummy of a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Strait of Hormuz. The live-fire attack against the replica ship marked the beginning of Iran’s Payambar-e A’zam 14, or Great Prophet 14, annual military exercise. Broadcast on state TV, the exercise is held by the Revolutionary Guard Corps and showcases Iranian air and naval power.
The targeted mock U.S. carrier is a scale replica of the USS Nimitz built on a barge. The ship even features fake aircraft. Five years ago, it was used during Great Prophet 9 and sustained enough damage during the attack to take it out of action. It was repaired recently to partake in Great Prophet 14.
Unable to match western superpowers like the United States in a conventional fight, Iran focuses more on asymmetrical warfare. Great Prophet 14 demonstrated these military capabilities. Combat divers placed and detonated a contact mine on the hull, fast boats circled the ship and troops fast-roped from a helicopter onto the ship’s deck.
Iranian forces also launched a number of missiles from the land, air and sea during the exercise. A helicopter-launched Chinese C-701 anti-ship missile targeted the mock carrier and struck its hull. The missile fire put US troops at Al-Dhafra Air Base in the UAE and Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar on alert.
USS Ronald Reagan and Carrier Strike Group Five (US Navy)
The exercise received criticism from the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet. “The US Navy conducts defensive exercises with our partners promoting maritime security in support of freedom of navigation; whereas, Iran conducts offensive exercises, attempting to intimidate and coerce,” said Fifth Fleet Spokeswoman Commander Rebecca Rebarich.
While the exercise showcased a number of Iranian military assets attacking the mock carrier, it is highly unlikely that these tactics would be effective against the real deal. Between airborne early warning aircraft, combat air patrols, destroyer escort screens and its own defense systems like the Phalanx CIWS, an American aircraft carrier is one of safest places to be during an Iranian attack. To paraphrase the late, great Bruce Lee, mock carriers don’t fight back.
The Iran nuclear deal was designed to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons, but now that President Donald Trump has pulled the US out of the pact, there’s a chance it could fall apart and the Iranian regime could move toward becoming a nuclear power.
There was no credible evidence Iran was violating the terms of the deal, but Trump, among others, felt it didn’t go far enough in terms of preventing Tehran from becoming a nuclear power.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani hasn’t said exactly what his government plans to do in response to Trump’s decision, but warned Iran could resume enriching uranium within weeks if it wished to.
Prior to the 2015 deal, Tehran had enriched uranium to 20% purity — weapons-grade uranium is roughly 90% purity. As part of the deal, Iran agreed to reduce its uranium stockpile by 98% and limit uranium enrichment to 3.67%. It also agreed to reduce its number of centrifuges — tube-shaped machines that help enrich uranium — by two-thirds.
The deal was essentially designed to ensure it would take Iran at least 12 months to gather enough bomb fuel necessary for a nuclear weapon, but there are concerns that if the deal fully crumbles, Tehran could ramp up nuclear activities and develop one much faster.
Jon Wolfsthal, who oversaw all aspects of arms control, nonproliferation and nuclear policy on the National Security Council in the Obama administration, expressed alarm in this regard on Twitter.
He tweeted, “As of yesterday, Iran is one year from being able to build a weapon. Now, all bets are off thanks to Trump. The pace is now set in Tehran, not Washington.”
As of yesterday, Iran is one year from being able to build a weapon. Now, all bets are off thanks to Trump. The pace is now set in Tehran, not Washington. — Jon B. “Globalist” Wolfsthal (@JBWolfsthal) May 9, 2018
Iran had roughly 20,000 centrifuges prior to the pact, but the agreement saw that number go down to approximately 6,000, and it was primarily only allowed to keep outdated models.
If Tehran reneges on the deal — which includes other global powers as well — now that Trump has pulled the US out if it, Iran could probably get the roughly 13,000 centrifuges it dismantled and put into storage up and running rather quickly, effectively jump-starting its nuclear program.
Still, Iran might not know how to actually build a nuclear weapon
Based on what was known about Iran’s nuclear capabilities before the deal this means it could theoretically develop bomb fuel within months — if it chooses to go this route. Some experts have suggested it would take Iran at least eight to 10 months to get to this point.
Hence, there are varying opinions on the length of time it would take for Iran to develop a nuke.
Siegfried Hecker, a Stanford professor and expert on nuclear weapons, told Business Insider it would take Iran “at least one year.”
“It would take Iran at least one year because they would have to re-constitute their full uranium centrifuge enrichment capabilities and then build the bomb,” Hecker said. “At this point, producing sufficient quantities of enriched uranium for the bomb fuel presents the greatest obstacle.”
Members of the Trump administration have also suggested Iran has no desire to race toward developing a nuclear weapon.
“Iran wasn’t racing to a weapon before the deal,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told the Senate Foreign Relations committee in April 2018. “There is no indication that I’m aware of that if that deal no longer existed that they would immediately turn to racing to create a nuclear weapon today.”
In short, the length of time it would take Iran to develop a nuclear weapon depends on an array of technological and geopolitical factors. But Trump’s decision arguably gives Tehran far more wiggle room on this issue than it has had in years.
This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.
I spent 10 years searching for joy in the moments that we weren’t together. I thought retirement would be easy, that the search would be over, and that the bond we shared prior to deployments would naturally realign us.
The truth is marriage takes work. I love this man fiercely and he loves me, but sometimes that is not enough. Here are three hard truths I’ve learned about marriage after the military and what living together really looks like:
I miss the goodbyes. It feels like a betrayal to even write that, but the truth is that goodbyes and time apart became a familiar routine. Whether it was him leaving for training or deployment, or me packing up to head out for another medical trip for our daughter, goodbyes were a constant dynamic of our relationship. And so were hellos.
Perhaps that’s what I really miss, the hello. I miss that moment that you catch each other’s eye after months apart, that first kiss, that first reconnection. The honeymoon period is glorious, and perhaps I thought that’s what we were entering with retirement.
C.S. Lewis talks of a quieter love that enables us to keep our promise of commitment to one another. He says it is a deep unity that is “maintained by the will and deliberately strengthened by habit.” He goes on to say that “It is on this love that the engine of marriage is run: being in love was the explosion that started it.”
We are always together.
Prior to retirement, we both looked forward to hellos. Now we crave opportunities and outlets to explore separate interests. I dreamed about lunch dates and long slow days together. Those lunch dates and long slow days are typically in doctor offices and waiting rooms.
In the beginning, we approached retirement as a honeymoon period when we should have been looking to the bigger picture and the skills we developed during reintegration. Instead of being honest and open about our expectations and disappointments, my husband and I began to hold resentment that only led to more misunderstandings. We had forgotten how essential open communication is during the reintegration period and how living together holds challenges that are new to couples who have spent so much time apart.
We’ve learned to pause and re-access, to not sweat the small stuff, to communicate clearly, and to not be offended when the other one needs to recharge with friends or some much needed time alone.
The romantic notion of spending every waking moment together is great in short bursts, but that passion is not sustainable for the steady commitment of marriage. There will be moments where we don’t like each other. The truth is we are in it for the long haul. That includes hospital rooms, counseling appointments, financial planning, and an occasional rushed meal of ramen before shuffling out the door for one of the many kid events or late night Walmart runs for forgotten school projects.
One of my favorite faith leaders is Fr. Richard Rohr who says, “Love and suffering are finally the same, because those who love deeply are committing themselves to eventual suffering, as we see in Jesus. And those who suffer often become the greatest lovers.”
I have found that the chaos and trauma that comes with life will either break or strengthen a marriage. Much like deployments and reintegration bring to the surface the underlying issues in the relationship, the difficulties that come with transitioning into civilian life can uncover problems you’ve stuffed down so deep you’ve forgotten they were there.
My husband and I statistically should have called it quits between our daughter’s cancer and military life. When I’m honest, I have to say that there have been times we almost did.
We all hold the skills necessary to make this new world of retirement life work. It’s simply a matter of repurposing the skills we’ve been learning throughout our military journey.
Macedonia has been trying to join NATO since it became independent 28 years ago. But every application had been blocked by neighboring Greece because of a regional dispute over Macedonia’s name.
Greece agreed to stop blocking Macedonia if it formally renamed itself the Republic of North Macedonia. Lawmakers in both countries in June 2018 agreed to the deal, known as the Prespa Agreement, which is due to take effect soon.
Permanent representatives of the 29 members of NATO signed the Accession Protocol for the future Republic of North Macedonia in Brussels.
Greece objected to the name Macedonia — which the country adopted in 1991 when Yugoslavia collapsed — because Macedonia is also the name of a region of Greece. Politicians in Greece argued that the name suggested the country had ambitions to one day rule Greek Macedonia as well.
Any country could technically veto it. But that’s unlikely, as the only one to object had been Greece until the Prespa Agreement:Macedonia would change its name, and in return Greece would stop blocking its NATO membership.
If the other 29 members ratify the accession, Macedonia would then pass its own ratification legislation, at which point it would become a NATO member.
The head of the Missile Defense Agency has expressed concerns about America’s long-term ability to defend the homeland in the face of growing threats from North Korea.
The U.S. military conducted a successful intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) intercept test in May. An interceptor launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California eliminated a mock long-range missile fired from the Reagan Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands in the Pacific. The results of the test have boosted the MDA’s confidence, but there is still much more work to be done.
Vice Admiral James Syring, the director of the MDA, told the House Armed Services Committee Wednesday that the recent intercept test was an “exact replica” of what the U.S. would face in the event of a North Korean missile strike.
“The scenario that we conducted was maybe more operationally realistic than not,” he explained.
North Korea has tested multiple new ballistic missile systems this year. The Hwasong-12 intermediate-range ballistic missile and Pukguksong-2 medium-range ballistic missile could be the technological predecessors to liquid and solid-fueled ICBM systems.
“Today, we are ahead” of the threat, Syring explained in his testimony, “We need to stay ahead.”
“I would not say we are comfortably ahead of the threat; I would say we are addressing the threat that we know today,” Syring testified. “The advancements in the last six months have caused great concern to me and others, in the advancement of and demonstration of technology of ballistic missiles from North Korea.”
North Korea does not yet have an ICBM, but it appears to be moving in that direction at an accelerated pace. While the North may still be several years from developing this kind of technology, defense officials believe that it is necessary to assume that North Korea can “range” the U.S. with a long-range ballistic missile.
In the wake of the recent test, the Department of Defense upgraded its assessment of the capabilities of the U.S. missile shield. For years, the U.S. has maintained “limited capability” to defend against North Korean missiles. The Ground-based Midcourse Defense system has “demonstrated the capability to defend the U.S. homeland from a small number of intermediate-range or intercontinental missile threats with simple countermeasures,” the Pentagon said in a recent memo, according to Reuters.
Nonetheless, the system needs improvements. “It’s just not the interceptor, the entire system,” Syring said June 7, “We are not there yet.”
“We have continued work with the redesigned kill vehicle. We have continued work with the reliability of the other components of the system to make it totally reliable,” he said. “We are not done yet.”
Some expert observers have suggested that the recent intercept test may not have been as realistic as the MDA claims, leaving something to be desired.
“I think Syring was overstating the case,” Joshua Pollack, editor of The Nonproliferation Review and senior research associate in the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, told The DCNF. “A real situation involving ICBM attack could include such unpleasant circumstances as multiple, simultaneous launches on different trajectories; decoys and chaff; intercepts in the shadow of the Earth (not illuminated by sunlight); and attacks on the [Ballistic Missile Defense] system itself by various means.”
“The intercept geometry, as depicted by MDA, in no way, shape or form resembles a [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea] ICBM attack against [the continental U.S.],” Jeffrey Lewis, the director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program in the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, tweeted Wednesday. “To be fair, MDA was right to walk before trying to run. A (sic) easy test is totally fine, but Adm. Syring appears to be over-claiming a bit.”
The range of the mock ICBM was 5,800 kilometers, which would give the missile a much slower closing speed than a real North Korean ICBM covering a distance of 9,000 to 11,000 kilometers would have. Faster closing speeds, according to Laura Grego, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, “give the interceptor less time to make course corrections, and are therefore more stressing for the interceptor.”
The head-on engagement trajectory of the May test is also inconsistent with the likely conditions of a North Korean strike.
“This test approximates many aspects of an intercept against an ICBM launched from North Korea, but the target and intercept geometry would be very different in a real attack,” Lewis told TheDCNF. “The missile would be launched closer to the interceptor site, would have a significantly longer range, and (in the case of an attack on DC) moving away from the interceptor site at a much greater angle.”
“MDA is limited by the existing test infrastructure and the very high cost of tests, so we should be reasonable about how realistic MDA can make any test,” he added. “But, in exchange, MDA needs to be reasonable in making claims about what has been demonstrated.”
Other scholars, however, believe the recent intercept test was a big breakthrough.
“This is a good day for homeland missile defense and a bad day for Kim Jong-un,” Thomas Karako, the director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in response to the test.
During the June 7 congressional hearing, Syring said that in an actual combat scenario, the U.S. would fire off a salvo of interceptors to better address the threat.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
As the US military builds up its forces in the Middle East, America’s top diplomat has been privately warning the Iranians that the death of even a single US service member at the hands of Iran or one of its proxies would trigger a military response, The Washington Post reported on June 18, 2019, citing US officials.
In May 2019, the US detected signs of possible Iranian aggression targeting US forces and interests in the Middle East. The US responded by deploying the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group and a bomber task force to the US Central Command area of responsibility.
White House national security adviser John Bolton issued a statement on May 5, 2019, saying that the military assets deployed to the region were meant “to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime that any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force.”
Two days later, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made an unscheduled trip to Baghdad, where he delivered the warning that one American fatality would be enough to trigger a counterattack, The Post reported. Pompeo, a former US Army officer, has been a major player, together with Bolton, in shaping the US “maximum pressure” strategy directed at Iran.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
More US military assets have since been moved into the region, and more are on the way in the wake of suspected limpet mine attacks on tankers that the US blames on Iran. US military leaders revealed on June 18, 2019, that the US does not plan to carry out a unilateral military response to the tanker attacks.
Gen. Paul Selva, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said any military action taken in response to the tanker attacks would “require an international consensus,” something the US military has been trying to secure through the release of evidence it says points to Iran’s culpability.
“If the Iranians come after US citizens, US assets or [the] US military, we reserve the right to respond with a military action, and they need to know that,” the country’s second-highest-ranking general told reporters. “The Iranians believe that we won’t respond, and that’s why we’ve been very clear in our message.”
The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln.
(U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Zachary S. Welch)
Iran is “lashing out against the international community,” but the Iranians “haven’t touched an American asset in any overt attack that we can link directly to them,” he added.
“What happens if Americans are killed? That changes the whole thing,” a senior Trump administration official told The Washington Post. “It changes everything.”
Pompeo, who appears to be taking the lead on the standoff with Iran amid a reshuffling of senior leadership at the Pentagon, visited US Central Command on June 18, 2019, the same day acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan withdrew his name from the nomination for defense secretary and said he would be stepping down.
“We are there to deter aggression. President Trump does not want war,” Pompeo said. “We will continue to communicate that message while doing the things that are necessary to protect American interests in the region.”
This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.
Thanks to new legislation signed into law Saturday, anyone distressed with thoughts of suicide will be able by next fall to dial 988 to reach a national crisis line similar to 911 for mental health emergencies.
President Donald Trump on Saturday signed two bills into law to help prevent veterans suicide — the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act and the Commander John Scott Hannon Veterans Mental Health Care Improvement Act.
The latter establishes a new Department of Veterans Affairs grant program to promote collaboration with outside entities and enhance suicide prevention services for veterans and their families. It establishes new data requirements to better track potential causes of suicide and new hiring rules to bolster the VA’s mental health workforce.
The VA estimates that more than 20 veterans die by suicide every day, and of those 20, 14 have received no treatment or care from the VA, according to a statement by Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Jerry Moran, R-Kan. Moran and ranking member Jon Tester, D-Mont., sponsored the Improvement Act, which they say will improve outreach to veterans and their mental health care options in six major ways:
Bolstering VA’s mental health workforce to serve more veterans by offering scholarships to mental health professionals to work at Vet Centers and placing at least one suicide prevention coordinator in every VA hospital.
Improving rural veterans’ access to mental health care by increasing the number of locations at which veterans can access VA telehealth services.
Implementing a pilot program to provide veterans access to complementary and integrative health programs through animal therapy, agritherapy, sports and recreation therapy, art therapy, and post-traumatic growth.
Establishing a grant program that requires VA to better collaborate with community organizations across the country already serving veterans. This collaboration will result in earlier identification of veterans who are at risk of suicide and will provide the ability to intervene with preventative services.
Studying the impact of living at high altitude on veterans’ suicide risk and diagnostic biomarker research to identify depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and other conditions.
Holding the VA accountable for its mental health care and suicide prevention efforts by examining how the department manages its suicide prevention resources.
Introduction ceremony for the Commander John Scott Hannon Veterans Mental Health Care Improvement Act. Photo from US Sen. Jon Tester’s official website.
“People in distress and in need of timely care should face the fewest obstacles possible to get help,” VA Secretary Robert Wilkie said after the bill was signed. “The bill President Trump signed today will soon make it easier for those at risk to be quickly connected to a trained responder and will help save lives.”
The legislation is named for Navy SEAL Commander John Scott Hannon, who retired to Montana after 23 years of service and worked to help veterans find their own paths to recovery before he died by suicide Feb. 25, 2018.
“This is a very proud moment for my brother and our entire family,” said Kim Parrott, Hannon’s sister, on behalf of the Hannon family. “This law will provide veterans greater and earlier access to the mental health care they need by requiring the DOD and VA to work together to bridge the transition between military service and civilian life and conduct research in evidence-based treatments.”
Tester said the new law “combines the best ideas from veterans, veterans service organizations, the VA, and mental health care advocates to deliver innovative solutions that’ll help heal invisible wounds of war through increased access to care, alternate therapies and local treatment options.”
Senators also agreed to try and fast-track a package of nine House bills also related to veterans suicide. That package — dubbed the COMPACT Act — features a measure by House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Mark Takano, D-Calif., to make VA mental health care services available to all veterans, regardless of their discharge status, according to Military Times. It also seeks to bolster support networks for at-risk veterans and requires VA officials to reach out to veterans every few years to ensure they are aware of benefits and health care options.
“It’s been a remarkable journey to get to this point, and I look forward to seeing the critical efforts laid out in this legislation to help our nation’s heroes get the right care at the right time for their mental health conditions,” said Matt Kuntz, executive director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness Montana, in a statement.
If you’ve read the book Lone Survivor, written by former SEAL Marcus Luttrell, or seen the 2014 movie adaptation of the same name, then you’re very familiar with the incredible tale of survival and valor. But prior to Luttrell’s involvement to that 2005 operation, there was another well-known “love survivor” raid.
The tale of Torpedo Squadron Eight at the Battle of Midway has since become legend. All 15 of the squadron’s Douglas TBD Devastators that were sent out that day were shot down. Of the 30 crew aboard those planes, the only survivor was Ensign George Gay. The others were all killed in action.
Some people believe that this squadron’s sacrifice is what pulled down the Mitsubishi A6M Zeros that were providing combat air patrol for the Japanese carrier force, known as Kido Butai, thus opening the way for Douglass SBD Dauntless dive-bombers to deliver the bombs that left three Japanese carriers fatally damaged in the span of five minutes. This is, however, an over-simplified view.
Ensign George Gay (right) with a gunner from Torpedo Squadron Eight.
(US Navy )
It should be clear, though, that Torpedo Eight’s attack was the first in a chain of events that culminating in a Japanese loss so devastating the force could never recover. According to the book Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway, written by Anthony P. Tully and Jonathan B. Parshall, the attack by Torpedo Squadron Eight came in almost an hour before the dive-bombers arrived — around 9:18 AM. Their attack took no more than 17 minutes. Gay was perhaps the only pilot to get close enough to drop a torpedo against a Japanese carrier before he ditched his plane. He attempted to rescue his gunner, Robert K. Huntington, but was unsuccessful.
The reason Torpedo Squadron 8 attacked alone was because Hornet’s air group commander, Stanhope Ring, made an incorrect guess. Waldron, commander of Torpedo Squadron 8, and Ring had often disagreed on where the Japanese carriers might have gone. This time, Ring ended up missing the Japanese carriers — flying too far to the north. Waldron was dead on target, though.
World War II’s answer to Michael Murphy is Lieutenant Commander John C. Waldron, who received a posthumous Navy Cross for Torpedo Eight’s attack.
At 9:38am, Torpedo Squadron Six began their attack, launched from the USS Enterprise. This lasted until about 10:00. Torpedo Squadron Six’s attack came from a different angle than Torpedo Eight’s — four of that squadron’s planes returned to the Enterprise.
It was during Torpedo Six’s attack that Wade McCluskey, leading the Dauntless dive bombers from the Enterprise, would sight a Japanese destroyer trying to catch up with the rest of Kido Butai after trying to chase off the submarine USS Nautilus (SS 168). As McCluskey’s Dauntlesses arrived over Kido Butai, so did the Yorktown’s strike of 12 Devastators and 17 Dauntlesses, escorted by six F4F Wildcats.
Of the fifteen pilots in this photo, only one lived.
The Devastators of Torpedo Three would be savaged by the Zeros, but the Dauntless dive-bombers would turn the tide of war in five minutes, largely because the torpedo squadrons had not only drawn fighters down, but their attacks forced the Japanese carriers to maneuver in ways that precluded the launching of their own planes.
Torpedo Eight’s attack, the first in this deadly series, had set the entire sequence in motion — a sequence that would forever cripple the Japanese Navy, leading to victory for the Allies at Midway.
All 133 of U.S. Cyber Command’s cyber mission force teams achieved full operational capability, Cybercom officials announced on May 17, 2018.
Having Cybercom achieve full operational capability early is a testament to the commitment of the military services toward ensuring the nation’s cyber force is fully trained and equipped to defend the nation in cyberspace.
To reach full operational capability, teams met a rigorous set of criteria, including an approved concept of operation and a high percentage of trained, qualified, and certified personnel. As part of the certification process, teams had to show they could perform their mission under stress in simulated, real-world conditions as part of specialized training events.
“I’m proud of these service men and women for their commitment to developing the skills and capabilities necessary to defend our networks and deliver cyberspace operational capabilities to the nation,” said Army Gen. Paul M. Nakasone, Cybercom’s commander.
Cybercom leaders emphasize that while this is an important milestone, more work remains. Now, the focus will shift toward readiness to perform the mission and deliver optimized mission outcomes, continuously.
“As the build of the cyber mission force wraps up, we’re quickly shifting gears from force generation to sustainable readiness,” Nakasone said. “We must ensure we have the platforms, capabilities and authorities ready and available to generate cyberspace outcomes when needed.”
The cyber mission force has been building capability and capacity since 2013, when the force structure was developed and the services began to field and train the force of over 6,200 Soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and civilians.
The mission did not wait while teams were building. While they were in development, or “build status,” teams in the cyber mission force were conducting operations to safeguard the nation.
(Georgia Army National Guard photo by Staff Sgt. Tracy J. Smith)
“It’s one thing to build an organization from the ground up, but these teams were being tasked operationally while they were growing capability,” Nakasone said. “I am certain that these teams will continue to meet the challenges of this rapidly evolving and dynamic domain.”
The cyber mission force is Cybercom’s action arm, and its teams execute the command’s mission to direct, synchronize and coordinate cyberspace operations in defense of the nation’s interests.
Cyber mission force teams support this mission through their specific respective assignments:
— Cyber national mission teams defend the nation by identifying adversary activity, blocking attacked and maneuvering to defeat them.
— Cyber combat mission teams conduct military cyberspace operations in support of combatant commander priorities and missions.
— Cyber protection teams defend DoD’s information network, protect priority missions and prepare cyber forces for combat.
— Cyber support teams provide analytic and planning support to national mission and combat mission teams.
Some teams are aligned to combatant commands to support combatant commander priorities and synchronize cyberspace operations with operations in the other four domains — land, sea, air and space — and some are aligned to the individual services for defensive missions. The balance report directly to subordinate command sections of Cybercom, the cyber national mission force, and Joint Force Headquarters-DoD Information Network.
The cyber national mission force plans, directs and synchronizes full-spectrum cyberspace operations to deter, disrupt and if necessary, defeat adversary cyber actors to defend the nation. National mission force teams are aligned to support the cyber national mission force.
Joint Force Headquarters-DoD Information Network, which also achieved full operational capability in 2018, provides command and control of DoD information network operations, defensive cyber operations and internal defensive measures globally to enable power projection and freedom of action across all warfighting domains.
Picture this: you’re gearing up for a trip to space. You’ll be gone roughly six months, which means you’ll need a cool 180 pairs of underwear or so packed in your suitcase. That’s before you even get to clothes. Add in shirts, pants and socks and you’re quickly racking up a packing volume that simply won’t fit. Shipping costs a slick $7,500 per pound; unfortunately, there’s no affordable “if it fits, it ships” option into space.
So what’s left? They can’t take it with them, they can’t have it shipped in – instead, they make what they have last. In most cases, that means wearing a pair of underwear for three days to a week. Longer for items like shorts and shirts. Yes, you read that right. The same clothes are worn for days on end. Some items make it longer than others, with daily uniforms making it more than a month before they’re changed out.
Are you grossed out yet? Before you start turning up your nose at these astronauts’ methods, consider a few of the variables. They’re in a space with a cool, controlled temp, so there’s minimal sweating. Little physical exertion is needed for most for daily movements. The training they do to keep muscles working is scheduled, meaning they can change before doing their anti-gravity exercises.
There’s less sweat, less grime and fewer chances of getting dirty. Think about it: they can’t even drop sauce on their shirt.
However, the workout clothes are said to get pretty gnarly. After a week of exercise, astronauts said the clothes stand on their own and smell “toxic” from their sweat.
Where do the clothes go?
But that still leaves the question of what actually happens to clothes once they’ve been worn. There are a few options. Because reentering the Earth’s atmosphere is such a tight science, space is key. Packing the dirty clothes simply isn’t on the docket for the journey home. Instead, astronauts have to get creative with their laundry.
One method is to simply shoot clothes into the atmosphere — yes, littering with the laundry. They collect it, along with trash, and place it on an unmanned aircraft that shortly before had delivered supplies, and is now no longer usable called The Progress. It’s “de-orbited” from the Space Station and sent on a path where it will burn in the Earth’s atmosphere. No word on what these three or four trips per year do for the environment.
Another option is to use the soiled clothing for plant nutrients. There is no soil in space, so in order to sprout seeds, astronauts have been known to use their dirty laundry that contains nutrients to sustain the plants. Gross… but interesting that this works!
Will the technology exist in the future?
It’s unlikely that traditional laundry machines will soon (or ever) exist on the International Space Station. Due to the amount of water that it takes to clean clothes, scientists say it’s simply not feasible. It’s also not a practice that’s cost-effective. However, with more travelers heading to space, and for longer periods of time, NASA said the current method is too wasteful and needs to be reevaluated.
In recent months they’ve partnered with Procter & Gamble (P&G), the owner of Tide, to create space-safe technology. The company will start testing alternative methods of cleaning clothes in space, including a type of machine that uses minimal water and soap. New types of detergent will also be tested to lengthen clothes’ lifespan and stay clean without gravity.
Snipers are a special breed, warriors with a combination of shooting skill, cunning, and patience. Military history has shown that a single sniper in the right place at the right time can change the course of battle, even in the face of overwhelming odds.
Here are the five most legendary among them:
5. U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Adelbert Waldron
As a member of the 9th Infantry Division, he was assigned to PBR boats patrolling the Mekong Delta, at one point making a confirmed kill from a moving boat at 900 yards. He set his record of 109 kills in just 8 months, which was the record until Chris Kyle broke it during the Iraq War and is perhaps even more remarkable considering he was fighting in a dense jungle environment that didn’t always provide easy sight lines.
4. Red Army Captain Vasily Zaytsev
Between November 10 and December 17, 1942, during the Battle of Stalingrad, Zaytsev killed 225 soldiers and officers of the Wehrmacht and other Axis armies, including 11 enemy snipers. Before that he killed 32 Axis soldiers with a standard-issue rifle. Between October 1942 and January 1943, he made an estimated 400 kills, some at distances of more than 1,100 yards.
A feature-length film, Enemy at the Gates, starring Jude Law as Zaytsev, includes a sniper’s duel between Zaytsev and a Wehrmacht sniper school director, Major Erwin König.
3. U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officer Chris Kyle
Navy SEAL Chris Kyle served four tours during the Iraq War, and during that time he became the most lethal sniper in U.S. military history with over 160 kills officially confirmed by the Department of Defense. Kyle’s bestselling book, American Sniper, was made into a movie directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Bradley Cooper as Kyle.
On February 2, 2013, Kyle was shot dead at a shooting range near Chalk Mountain, Texas along with his friend, Chad Littlefield. The assailant, Eddie Ray Routh, was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole.
2. U.S. Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Norman Hathcock
During the Vietnam War Hathcock had 93 “confirmed” kills of North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong personnel, which meant they occurred with an officer present (in addition to his spotter). He estimated the number of “unconfirmed” kills to be upwards of 400. His warfighting career ended when he was wounded by an anti-tank mine in 1969 and sent home. He later helped establish the USMC Sniper School.
1. Finnish Army Second Lieutenant Simo Häyhä
Nicknamed “White Death,” Simo Häyhä tallied 505 kills, far and away the highest count from any major war. All of Häyhä’s kills of Red Army combatants were accomplished in fewer than 100 days – an average of just over five kills per day – at a time of year with very few daylight hours. He was wounded late in the war when an explosive bullet shot by a Soviet soldier took off his lower left jaw. He lived a long life, however, dying in a veterans nursing home in 2002 at the age of 96.
When asked if he regretted killing so many people he replied, “I only did my duty, and what I was told to do, as well as I could.”
A 20-year-old Lance Cpl. of Britain’s Coldstream Guards was right on target in December 2013. His quick shooting prevented a major offensive by Taliban fighters when he hit the trigger of an enemy suicide vest – with a round from his L115A3 rifle.
The UK’s Telegraph reported that his unit was hundreds strong during a joint patrol with Afghan counterparts in Helmand Province, near Karakan. They came under heavy fire from a Taliban ambush. The commanding officer of the 9/12 Royal Lancers, Lt. Col. Richard Slack, did not give the name of the sniper, but acknowledged his decisive action.
“The guy was wearing a vest. He was identified by the sniper moving down a tree line and coming up over a ditch,” said Slack. “He had a shawl on. It rose up and the sniper saw he had a machine gun. … They were in contact and he was moving to a firing position. The sniper engaged him and the guy exploded.”
It was the lance corporal’s second shot of his tour. When he hit the vest’s trigger, the man exploded, taking out five more of his fellow fighters. He was 930 yards away.
The sniper’s first shot killed an enemy machine gunner during the same engagement. That shot was from more than 1,400 yards away.
When the smoke cleared, British forces found a second vest containing 44 pounds of explosives.
Holly Watt of the Telegraph called it “one of the dwindling number of gun battles between British forces and the insurgents.”
A Taliban shadow governor who had planned and executed improvised explosive device attacks on Marines and Afghan soldiers for well over a decade was killed in a precision airstrike just days before Christmas, Marines in Afghanistan told Military.com.
Task Force Southwest, the 300-Marine element that deployed to Helmand province as an advisory force for the Afghan National Defense Forces in April, does most of its work from inside the wire, supporting the local troops who patrol and launch ground attacks. But this recent strike on local Taliban mastermind Qari Fida Mohammad illustrates the impact Marines continue to have on the active fight.
Mohammad, longtime shadow governor of the restive Helmand district of Marjah, was killed Dec. 20, task force spokeswoman Maj. Kendra Motz said.
Standing inside the unit’s operations center, where 11 large flat screens featured detailed live drone footage from around Helmand province, Capt. Brian Hubert explained how the strike happened.
“Through the work of the intelligence sections as well as the operations in here, and coordination with the Afghans as well, we were able to conduct a strike on him a few days ago,” said Hubert, battle captain for Task Force Southwest. “Basically, we’re very familiar with the battlespace now. So when we see the leaders we know are important there, we can kind of do a bead on them.”
The unit started tracking Mohammad with its eyes in the sky. When he was well positioned as a target, the Marines called in two Air ForceF-16 Fighting Falcons to execute the strike.
“He was in a vehicle traveling with deputies, bodyguards, and a cousin of his, who was also a sub-commander,” Hubert said. “We took the shot successfully, and [he was] dead on the spot, which was huge.”
Mohammad, who was based in the Taliban hotbed of Marjah, but operated throughout Helmand province, had been well-known to the Marines for years.
Col. Matthew Reid, deputy commander of the task force, told Military.com he had known about Mohammad in 2010, when he deployed to Helmand for active combat operations.
“We’re still not really fully aware of the exact ramifications of taking him out,” Reid said. “It was a pretty big takedown, so we’re pretty happy about it. He was behind a lot of attacks against Marines back in the day–really high profile attacks.”
Hubert said the task force was now tracking the impact of Mohammad’s elimination. Ahead of the strike, he said, Marines had watched via drone footage as local civilians took to their homes, fearful of being blamed and facing violent reprisal if any attack were launched on the shadow governor. Now, he said, newly leaderless Taliban fighters in southern Marjah are acting disorganized and confused, without orders to carry out.
“Supposedly, [Mohammad] also had a lot of intimidation where he killed full families; he was absolutely just a Mafia-style Taliban leader in that area,” Hubert said, adding that he regularly demanded ‘taxes’ from local civilians by force. “Taking him out … hopefully provides the residents of Marjah and the southern end a little bit of a ‘hey, maybe it’s a turn.'”
For the Marines, Marjah is a region full of history. It’s the site of some of the service’s most hard-fought battles in Helmand. Some 50 American troops died in the 2010 joint siege on Marjah, known as Operation Moshtarak. When Marines departed Afghanistan in 2014, Marjah was considered relatively stable; but by 2016 it had fallen back under Taliban control.
Marines are now working to empower Afghan troops from the local 215th Corps of the Afghan National Army to hold the line. When the small task force arrived, the provincial capital city of Lashkar Gah was on the verge of being overtaken by the Taliban, Marines said. Now, with support from the Task Force, the soldiers have restored stability to the town and are beginning to move offensively against the Taliban.
In a shura with Navy Secretary Richard Spencer and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Robert Neller on Dec. 23, Helmand provincial governor Hayatullah Hayat said Afghan troops continue to take daily casualties in the fight.
But task force personnel continue to exact a daily toll against the Taliban as well. On a December visit to the operations center, a dark plume of smoke rose from a road on one of the screens — evidence of a precision strike carried out only minutes before.
From the screens, Hubert said, Marines had watched a pair of Taliban fighters carrying weapons dig a hole in a road south of the Marjah district center, intending to emplace IEDs ahead of a trip Afghan National Security Forces intended to make to the center.
Afghan Air Force A-29 Super Tucanos were in the air at the time, and Marines reached out and shared what they were seeing, offering them the opportunity to take out the fighters.
“They couldn’t quite get it, so we stepped in,” Hubert said. “We took the shot with F-16s and killed the two enemy. So now, they’re free to move toward the Marjah district center unimpeded by any kind of enemy contact right now.”
The process of identifying targets and executing strikes is a collaborative one, Hubert explained. Often the Marines will share what they’re seeing and make recommendations to the Afghan troops about how to respond, but leave the decision-making to them. The Afghan troops also play a significant role in the intelligence-gathering: in addition to ground reports, they maintain their own ScanEagle drone, its footage featured on one of the screens at the operations center.
As one target smoldered on the screen, Marines were tracking another: two men traveling up a road, south of friendly forces, one carrying a weapon on his back, concealed by clothing.
“We can see [the weapon] by the shape and size of what it looks like, then we’ll see him take it out,” Hubert explained.
In the course of several hours that morning, the Marines would coordinate the elimination of a half-dozen Taliban fighters.
The recent strike against Mohammad, and the daily strikes on Taliban targets, illustrate the intensity of the fight the Marines are still waging, albeit from a greater distance than they were during active combat in support of Operation Enduring Freedom four years ago.
“I know we want to bring in governance, and I know we want institutional fixes. But right now, this is a fight,” said Reid, the task force deputy commander. “And as Marines, when we’re fighting, we’re going to kill the enemy, and we’re going to kill as many as we can.”