North Korea's dictator was cheered like a rock star in Singapore - We Are The Mighty
MIGHTY TRENDING

North Korea’s dictator was cheered like a rock star in Singapore

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, the man who has held Asia on the brink of nuclear war for years, was loudly cheered and celebrated as he made his way around Singapore on a night out.

Around Singapore, media outlets stood perched and ready to catch a glimpse of the young leader as he toured the city’s finer establishments. Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump has not been seen outside since getting off his airplane, as he crams for June 12, 2018’s summit.


Video taken at the Marina Bay Sands hotel and shopping center shows Kim heading in and likely up to SkyPark, the famous rooftop of the iconic hotel.

SkyPark features swimming pools, bars, and restaurants and is a big tourist attraction.

Hear the enthusiasm in the room as he enters:

Kim has lived in North Korea much of his life, and didn’t leave the country between 2011 and early 2018, when he went to Beijing to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Kim was also photographed with Singapore’s minister of foreign affairs in what’s likely the first selfie of his life.

Kim lives under constant fear of assassination, as the administrator of a state that keeps untold thousands in political prisons while it seeks to threaten the world with nuclear weapons. He likely hasn’t had many nights out on the town like this.

Meanwhile, less than half a mile away, Trump is preparing for their historic meeting.

This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.

Articles

China could be preparing for a paramilitary invasion in the East China Sea

Tokyo delivered a humiliating public protest to Beijing for the intrusion of a vast Chinese “fishing fleet” escorted by more than a dozen coast guard and other law-enforcement vessels in or near waters of the disputed Senkaku islands.


Such protests are common in the ongoing cat and mouse game in the East and South China Seas, but they are usually delivered in private. In this case, Tokyo decided to turn its protest into political theater.

China’s Ambassador to Japan, Cheng Yonghua, was summoned to the foreign ministry, where news and television camera were waiting to film the encounter. Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida kept Cheng waiting for ten minutes then entered, a stern look on his face, gesturing Cheng to sit down.

“Relations with China are becoming noticeably wors[e] because China is trying to change the status quo,” Kishida lectured Cheng, who looked embarrassed by the media presence. He said the Diaoyu, as China calls them, were Chinese territory and the two nations should “strive to reach a solution.”

A boarding team from the People’s Liberation Army (Navy) | U.S Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Manda M. Emery

Japan has become used to Chinese Coast Guard intrusions into its claimed territorial waters. On the average of once every two weeks, two or three Chinese ships slip into Senkaku waters. They stay for a couple hours then leave.

But there had been nothing like what happened August 8 when a flotilla of more than 230 “fishing boats” escorted by up to 28 Chinese Coast Guard and other law enforcement vessels virtually surrounded the Senkaku islands for several days.

It was not immediately clear exactly what message the Chinese were trying to convey, although Tokyo has been very vocal in supporting the Philippines in its legal action against China resulting in the July 11 ruling that confirmed all of Manila’s charges.

Was the latest intrusion a dress rehearsal for war?

The various scenarios for war in the East China Sea, and possibly in the South China Sea, usually fall into two main categories. There is the “accidental” fight scenario. A Chinese destroyer’s radar locks onto a Japanese warship. The Japanese captain fires back in self-defense and the incident spirals out of control.

That is one scenario. Another, possibly more realistic, is the “swarm” scenario: Several hundred “fishing boats” sail from ports in Zhejiang province for the Senkaku, where they overwhelm the Japanese Coast Guard by their sheer numbers.

This time, the fishing boats land some 200 or so commandoes disguised as fishermen or “settlers.” The Senkakus are not garrisoned by Japanese troops, so no shots are fired. The Chinese side says it is not using force, merely taking possession of what it claims to be its sovereign territory.

Tokyo feels obliged to respond, although the Chinese landing force is too large to dislodge by ordinary policing methods, such as those that have been used in the past when a handful of activists – Chinese and Japanese – tried to land on the disputed islands and plant their flags.

That would put Japan in the position of being the first party to fire shots, possibly landing elements of the Western Infantry Regiment, which was created and trained specifically to recapture islands. Meanwhile, Tokyo hurriedly consults with Washington seeking assurance that it will honor its commitments to defend Japan.

On more than one occasion, including in remarks from President Barack Obama himself, the United States has stated that the Senkaku come under the provisions of the joint security treaty as they are administered by Japan.

In the most recent incident, the estimated 230 Chinese fishing vessels escorted by Chinese law enforcement vessels made no effort to land anyone, though the Japanese Coast Guard shadowing the vessels kept a sharp eye out for any sign of it.

China boasts the world’s largest fishing fleet, but it is a matter of debate among security analysts as to extent to which China’s fishing fleet constitutes a paramilitary force, or as they sometimes say, a “maritime militia.” Somehow, a swarm of Chinese Fishing boats always seem to materialize on cue in disputes in the East and South China Sea.

The use of fishing boats, not to mention the nominally civilian coast guard, tends to blur the distinctions between what is civilian and what is military. In any conflict, the Japan and the U.S. would have to deal with ostensibly civilian boats that could flood the battlefield turning it into a confusing melee.

“China’s fishing fleet is being encouraged to fish in disputed waters . . . and are being encouraged to do so for geopolitical as well as commercial reasons,” says Alan Duport, a security analyst at the University of New South Wales.

Swarm tactics have been used often in the South China Sea. Hundreds of boats converged in the Gulf of Tonkin in 2014 in the dispute over the oil-drilling rig that the Chinese erected in Vietnam’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

Beijing has dispatched swarms of fishing boats to Laconia Shoals off the coast of Sarawak to fish in Malaysia’s EEZ, with escorts of coast guard vessels to protect them should Kuala Lumpur try to arrest them. Similar confrontations have taken place in Indonesia’s South Chia Sea EEZ.

China has been commissioning new coast guard vessels, either converted navy frigates or purpose-built cutters, at an astonishing rate to the extent that it can now deploy ships in various corners of the contested waters simultaneously.

It may be better that principle actors in the unfolding conflict are civilian vessels. But certainly lurking nearby and ready to respond are the warships of the regular Chinese, Japanese, and America navies.

popular

Why diplomatic immunity doesn’t work like it does in movies

It’s the perfect scenario for an action film: the villain from a foreign country goes on a crime spree and, because of international law protecting them, there’s nothing anyone but the protagonist can do about it.


Diplomatic immunity does exist. It treats diplomats (and their families) as an agent of their host country, meaning that if you cite a diplomat for a parking violation, you’re giving their entire host nation a ticket for a parking violation. In an extreme scenario, if a South African diplomat were to be arrested for heading a cocaine smuggling ring in America, then the American diplomat in South Africa would be in danger.

But it’s still not much of a ‘get out of jail free’ card.
(Courtesy Photo)

Any serious crime committed would require action from the diplomat’s nation. In 1997, a high-ranking Georgian diplomat drove drunk, caused a five-car pileup in Washington D.C., and killed a 16 year-old girl. He was protected under diplomatic immunity when he was pulled over for a previous DUI, but when it happened again and an American girl was killed, the nation of Georgia waived all immunity and he was sentenced to 21 years in prison.

This is because a nation is bound by diplomatic ties to act. Because the diplomat was acting in lieu of the Georgian government, murdering an American fractured American-Georgian relations and could be considered an act of war. Which lead to the waiving of diplomatic immunity, expulsion, and eventual imprisonment of the diplomat.

The benefit of diplomatic immunity that gets used the most is that diplomats don’t need to personally pay fines. If a diplomat were to be pulled over for speeding, as is extremely common in Germany (there actually are speed limits on the Autobahn,) the fine is paid for by the diplomat’s country.

All foreign diplomats get special license plates that usually stop them from being pulled over anyways.
(Courtesy Photo)

It also works for other smaller infractions like failure to pay rent. Many officials from Zaire refused to pay in 2002. Their diplomatic immunity prevented them from being evicted and the landlord couldn’t do anything about it. It was after their return home that the country of Zaire paid their debt.

MIGHTY HISTORY

This was the Army’s plan to build a moon base during the Cold War

During the Cold War, the U.S. government was hell-bent on one upping the commies in any way possible. In the process, they came up with a number of outlandish plans, such as that time they proposed nuking the moon, interestingly enough a project a young Carl Sagan worked on. There were also many more down to Earth projects like the development of what would become the internet in order to ensure ease of sharing information among the nation’s scientists. This brings us to a project that unfortunately went into history’s dustbin — the U.S. Army’s plan to build a massive military installation on the moon.

Known as Project Horizon, the impetus for the plan came when the Soviets set their sites on the moon. As noted in the Project Horizon report, “The Soviet Union in propaganda broadcasts has announced the 50th anniversary of the present government (1967) will be celebrated by Soviet citizens on the moon.”


U.S. National Space policy intelligence thought this was a little optimistic, but still felt that the Soviets could probably do it by 1968. Military brass deemed this a potential disaster for the United States for several reasons.

Concept art from NASA showing astronauts entering a lunar outpost.

To begin with, if the Soviets got to the moon first, they could potentially build their own military base there which they could use for a variety of secret projects safely away from the United States’ prying eyes. In the extreme, they could potentially launch nuclear attacks on the U.S. with impunity from that base.

Naturally, a military installation completely out of reach of your enemies both terrified and tantalized military officials.

Next up, if the Soviets landed on the moon first, they could try to claim the entire moon for themselves. If they did that, any move by the U.S. to reach the moon could potentially be considered an aggressive act, effectively making the moon off limits to the United States unless willing to risk war back home.

This was deemed to be a potential disaster as the moon, with its low gravity, was seen as a needed hub for launching deep space missions, as well as a better position to map and observe space from than Earth.

Beyond the practical, this would also see the Soviets not just claiming the international prestige of an accomplishment like landing and building a facility on the moon, but also countless other discoveries and advancements after, as they used the moon for scientific discovery and to more easily launch missions beyond.

Of course, the Soviets might do none of these things and allow the U.S. to use the moon as they pleased. But this wasn’t a guarantee. As noted in the Project Horizon report, “Clearly the US would not be in a position to exercise an option between peaceful and military applications unless we are first. In short, the establishment of the initial lunar outpost is the first definitive step in exercising our options.”

The threat of having the moon be in Soviet hands simply would not stand. As Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson would famously state in 1964, “I do not believe that this generation of Americans is willing to resign itself to going to bed each night by the light of a Communist moon.”

Thus, long before Kennedy would make his famous May 25, 1961 declaration before Congress that the U.S. “should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth”, military brass in the U.S. were dead-set on not just man stepping foot on the moon, but building a military installation there and sticking around permanently.

And so it was that in March of 1959, Chief of Army Ordnance Major General John Hinrichs was tasked by Chief of Research and Development Lieutenant General Arthur G Trudeau with developing a detailed plan on what was needed to make such a moon base happen. A strict guideline of the plan was that it had to be realistic and, towards that end, the core elements of the plan had to use components and equipment either already developed or close to being completed.

To facilitate the outline for the project, Major General John B. Medaris stated, “We grabbed every specialist we could get our hands on in the Army.”

The resulting report published on June 9, 1959 went into an incredible amount of detail, right down to how the carbon dioxide would be scrubbed from the air at the base.

So what did they come up with?

To begin with, it was deemed the transport side could be accomplished using nothing more than Saturn 1 and Saturn 2 rockets. Specifically, 61 Saturn 1s and 88 Saturn 2s would transport around a total of 490,000 lbs of cargo to the moon. An alternative plan was to use these rockets to launch much of the cargo to a space station in high Earth orbit. These larger sections would then be ferried over to the moon using a dedicated ship that would go back and forth from the Earth to the moon.

The potential advantage here was that for the Saturn rockets to get equipment to the moon, they were limited to about 6000 pounds per trip on average. But if only transporting something to orbit, they could do much greater payloads, meaning fewer rockets needed. The problem, of course, was that this version of the plan required the development of a ferrying rocket and an orbiting space station, which made it the less desirable option. Again, a strict guideline for the project was that the core of the plan had to use existing or near existing equipment and technology in order to expedite the project and get to the moon before the Soviets.

Whichever method was used, once everything was on the moon, a pair of astronauts would be sent to inspect everything and figure out if anything needed replaced. The duration of this first moon landing by man was slated to be a 1-3 month stay.

Next up, whatever replacement items that needed to be sent would be delivered, and then once all that was set, a construction crew would be sent to complete the base. The general plan there was to use explosives and a specially designed space bulldozer/backhoe to create trenches to put the pre-built units into. Once in place, they would simply be attached together and buried in order to provide added protection from meteorites and potential attacks, among other benefits.

As for the features of this base, this included redundant nuclear reactors for power, as well as the potential to augment this with solar power for further redundancy. Various scientific laboratories would also be included, as well as a recreation room, hospital unit, housing quarters, and a section made for growing food in a sustainable way. This food would augment frozen and dehydrated foods supplied from Earth.

The base would also have extensive radio equipment to facilitate the moon functioning as a communications hub for the U.S. military back on Earth that could not be touched by any nation on Earth at the time. On a similar note, it would also function as a relay for deep space communications to and from Earth.

Beyond the core base itself, a moon truck capable of transporting the astronauts and equipment around was proposed, as well as placing bomb shelters all around the base for astronauts to hide in if needed. Water, oxygen, and hydrogen would ultimately be provided from the ice on the moon itself, not only sustaining the astronauts but potentially providing any needed fuel for rockets, again to help facilitate missions beyond the moon and transport back home to Earth.

Of course, being a military installation, it was deemed necessary for the 12 astronauts that were to be stationed at the base at all times to be able to defend themselves against attack. Thus, for their personal sidearms, a general design for a space-gun was presented, more or less being a sort of shotgun modified to work in space and be held and fired by someone in a bulky suit.

The astronauts would also be given many Claymore like devices to be stationed around the base’s perimeter or where deemed needed. These could be fired remotely and more or less just sent a hail of buckshot at high speed wherever they were pointed.

Thanks to the lesser gravity and lack of tangible atmosphere, both of these weapons would have incredible range, if perhaps not the most accurate things in the world.

Artist concept of a lunar colony.

But who needs accuracy when you have nuclear weapons? Yes, the astronauts would be equipped with those too, including the then under development Davey Crockett nuclear gun. Granted, thanks to the lack of atmosphere, the weapon wouldn’t be nearly as destructive as it would be on Earth, but the ionizing radiation kill zone was still around 300-500 meters.

Another huge advantage of the Davey Crockett on the moon was that the range was much greater, reducing the risk to the people firing it, and the whole contraption would only weigh a little over 30-40 pounds thanks to the moon’s lesser gravity, making it easier for the astronauts to cart around than on Earth.

Of course, being a space base, Project Horizon creators naturally included a death ray in its design. This was to be a weapon designed to focus a huge amount of sun rays and ionizing radiation onto approaching enemy targets. Alternatively, another death ray concept was to build a device that would shoot ionizing radiation at enemy soldiers or ships.

As for space suits, according to the Project Creators, despite being several years before the character would make his debut in the comics, they decided an Iron Man like suit was the way to go, rather than fabric based as NASA would choose. To quote the report,

For sustained operation on the lunar surface a body conformation suit having a substantial outer metal surface is considered a necessity for several reasons: (1) uncertainty that fabrics and elastomers can sustain sufficient pressure differential without unacceptable leakage; (2) meteoroid protection; (3) provides a highly reflective surface; (4) durability against abrasive lunar surface; (5) cleansing and sterilization… It should be borne in mind that while movement and dexterity are severe problems in suit design, the earth weight of the suit can be allowed to be relatively substantial. For example, if a man and his lunar suit weigh 300 pounds on earth, they will only weigh 50 pounds on the moon.

Along with death rays, nuclear guns, and badass space suits, no self respecting moon base could be governed by anything as quaint as a simply named committee or the like. No, Project Horizon also proposed creating a “Unified Space Command” to manage all facets of the base and its operation, along with further exploration in space, including potentially a fleet of space ships needed to achieve whatever objectives were deemed appropriate once the base was established.

As to the cost of this whole project, the report stated,

The total cost of the eight and one-half year program presented in this study is estimated to be six billion dollars (*about billion in 2019 dollars*). This is an average of approximately 0 million per year. These figured are a valid appraisal, and, while preliminary, they represent the best estimates of experienced, non-commercial, agencies of the government. Substantial funding is undeniably required for the establishment of a U. S. lunar outpost; however, the implications of the future importance of such an operation should be compared to the fact that the average annual funding required for Project HORIZON would be less than two percent of the current annual defense budget.

Of course, the reality is that the entire Apollo program ended up costing a little over billion, so this billion estimate likely would have ballooned to much greater levels had the base actually been built. That said, even massively more expensive, given the number of years, this would have still represented a relatively small portion of the United States’ annual defense budget, as noted.

Sadly, considering the initial plan was explicitly to make this a peaceful installation unless war broke out, meant mostly for scientific discovery, and considering what such a moon base would have meant for the direction of future space exploration, neither President Dwight D. Eisenhower, nor the American public had much interest in even going to the moon at all, let alone building a base there.

NASA conceptual illustration of a lunar base.

Yes, contrary to popular belief, the Greatest Generation was pretty non-enthusiastic about the whole space thing. In fact, even after Kennedy would make his famous speech before Congress and then at Rice University, a Gallup poll showed almost two-thirds of Americans were against the plan to land a man on the moon, generally seeing it as a waste of taxpayer dollars. Sentiments did not greatly improve from there.

But Kennedy was having none of it, as outlined in his September 12, 1962 speech at Rice University:

We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of preeminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war… But why, some say, the Moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask, why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win…

As for the U.S., as the initial glow of the accomplishment of putting a man on the moon rapidly wore off, and with public support almost nonexistent for further missions to the moon, it was deemed that taxpayer dollars would be much better spent for more down to Earth activities like spending approximately SEVEN TIMES the Apollo program’s entire cost sending older taxpayer’s children off to kill and be killed in Vietnam… a slightly less inspiring way to counter the communists. Thus, efforts towards the moon and beyond were mostly curtailed, with what limited funds were available for space activities largely shifted to the space shuttle program and more obviously practical missions closer to home, a move the Soviets quickly copied as well unfortunately.

Bonus Fact:

A little talked about facet of Kennedy’s goal for landing on the moon was actually to have the Soviets and the U.S. join together in the effort. As Kennedy would state in the aforementioned Rice speech, “I… say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours. There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again.”

Unfortunately, each time Kennedy proposed for the U.S. and Soviets join efforts towards this unifying goal, which seemingly would have seen the Cold War become a lot less hot, the Soviets declined. That said, for whatever it’s worth, according to Sergei Khrushchev, the son of then Soviet Premiere Nikita Khrushchev, while his father initial thought it unwise to allow the U.S. such intimate knowledge of their rocket technology, he supposedly eventually changed his mind and had decided to push for accepting Kennedy’s proposal. Said Sergei, “He thought that if the Americans wanted to get our technology and create defenses against it, they would do that anyway. Maybe we could get (technology) in the bargain that would be better for us…”

Sergei also claimed that his father also saw the benefit of better relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union as a way to facilitate a massive cutback in military spending that was a huge drain on Soviet resources.

Sergei would further note that Kennedy’s assassination stopped plans to accept the offer, and the Johnson administration’s similar offer was rejected owing to Khrushchev not trusting or having the same respect for Johnson as he had developed for Kennedy.

Whatever the truth of that, thanks to declassified documents after the fall of the Soviet Union, we know that the Soviets were, in fact, originally not just planning to put a human on the moon, but also planning on building a base there as well. Called Zvezda, the planned Soviet moon installation was quite similar to the one outlined in Project Horizon, except instead of digging trenches, this base would simply be placed on the surface and then, if needs be, buried, but if not, the base was to be a large mobile platform to use to explore the moon.

This article originally appeared on Today I Found Out. Follow @TodayIFoundOut on Twitter.

If you liked this article, you might also enjoy:

MIGHTY TACTICAL

China’s version of the F-15 Strike Eagle is a huge ripoff

In the 1990s, China was looking to upgrade its military. Seeing what the United States Military had done in Operation Desert Storm was a huge motivator for the growing nation. They had a problem, though. After the 1989 Tienanmen Square massacre, the plans to modernize with technology from the West were shelved. As you might imagine, having massacres aired on CNN brought about a number of sanctions and embargoes.


China still wanted modern tech. The collapse of the Soviet Union was the answer to their “situation.” The fall of the Berlin Wall symbolized both the Soviet Union’s demise and a sudden availability of dirt-cheap military technology. At the time, this was exactly what a dictatorship like China needed, given their position on the world’s crap-list for shooting peaceful demonstrators.

A Su-30MKK, the Russian plane that became the basis for the J-16 Flanker. (Image from Wikimedia Commons)

One of the big-ticket items China acquired was a license for the Su-27/Su-30/Su-33 family of Flankers. While China initially deployed planes built in Russia, they quickly started making their own versions. The Chinese variant of the Su-30MKK is the J-16 Flanker.

Like the Su-30, the J-16 is a two-seat, multi-role fighter. It has a top speed of 1,522 miles per hour, a maximum range of 1,864 miles, and can carry a wide variety of ordnance, including air-to-air missiles, air-to-surface missiles, rocket pods, and bombs. The J-16 also has a single 30mm cannon. Currently, an electronic-warfare version of this plane is also in the works.

An armed Chinese fighter jet flies near a U.S. Navy P-8 Poseidon patrol aircraft over the South China Sea about 135 miles east of Hainan Island in international airspace. (U.S. Navy Photo)

There aren’t many J-16s in service — roughly two dozen according to a 2014 Want China Times article — but this Chinese copy of Russia’s answer to the F-15E Strike Eagle looks to be a capable opponent to the United States. Learn more about this plane in the video below:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY2TL6TBTkU
(Dung Tran | YouTube)
MIGHTY FIT

BREAKING NEWS: Three days a week in the gym is enough for most people.

If all 24 hour news networks can have “Breaking News” scrolling across their screens, then this applies.

Most internet fitness gurus are purposely misleading you, because they’re trying to sell you something. They want you to feel bad about yourself, so that you dedicate your whole life to the gym, so that they put more of your money in their pocket.

The truth is that you only need to train enough to get stronger. When your body is getting stronger it is growing, and growth is synonymous with progress.


So how many times a week is it actually necessary to hit the gym?

Contrary to popular belief, it doesn’t actually take much time to gain strength. In fact, three days a week is enough for most people.

I bet you thought you needed to be in the gym 6-7 days a week to see any real gains in strength or size.

Grow. If you aren’t moving forward the world is passing you by.

(Photo by Jesper Aggergaard on Unsplash)

What is your requirement?

Your requirement is to get stronger. If you aren’t getting stronger in one way or another, you are getting weaker. That’s a fact of life.

Getting stronger doesn’t mean deadlifting 3 times your body weight. That’s just an idealized standard.

Getting stronger simply means being able to do a little more than you used to. Maybe that means one more body weight squat, or 1 lb added to your bench press. Those are both positively trending markers.

You can consider strength gains as your measure in the fight against death. In order to live the most healthy life possible you don’t need to add 30 lbs to your lifts overnight, you just need to add a fraction of a lb each day.

Bodybuilders and competitive strength athletes have no edge over everyone else just because they’re strong. If strength worked like that all the oldest people would be the strongest and biggest, that is clearly not how the world works.

Frequency is a function of volume.

A recent meta-analysis came to the conclusion that the frequency of your workout sessions only really matters if it affects how much weight you move over the course of the week (your total volume).

12 sets of 10 reps of bench press at 100 lbs on Monday and then nothing else the rest of the week is the same as doing 2 sets of 10 reps of bench press at 100 lbs each day Monday to Saturday.

They are both 12,000 lbs moved. That 12,000 lbs is the main predictor of how much stronger you get.

Of course, these two scenarios are extreme ends of the spectrum. There are plenty of much more reasonable ways to break up all of this work.

Not to mention, it would be difficult to ensure that you don’t get too tired to get all the required reps if you try to fit it all in one workout. That’s why we break up our workouts across the whole week.

If you have 4 hours to train one day a week, this might be a good option for you. Most normal people can only carve out 45-90 minutes 3-4 times a week. Luckily that’s plenty of time to get in our total volume.

That’s right, my fine reader, you should choose the frequency of your workouts based on your schedule and then fit in the total volume you require however you see fit.

Just get stronger.

The amount of volume you require is obviously unique to you, and what you are currently doing. As a general rule of thumb:

You want to be training just enough to be getting stronger. No more, no less, this is your minimum effective dose. If you aren’t getting stronger, add more volume, that could mean more weight on the bar, another rep on the last set, more reps on all the sets, or a whole additional set. It depends on you.

If you are working out 2 times a week and getting stronger, in the way in which you want to be getting stronger, then keep training that way until you aren’t getting stronger anymore. Once you plateau start adding volume. Once those 2 workouts start to get too long for you to bear, add a third day.

I’m sure you see how you could continue progressing like this indefinitely.

By simply doing a little more than you were previously doing, you will see gains in strength and performance.

This is why 3 days is enough. You can fit a lot of work into three 60-90 minute gym sessions. Remember to look at the total volume you are doing each week, that’s the real predictor of progress.

MIGHTY FIT is making big moves to put out content that you not only want to read but also want to live. Take 2 minutes and let us know here what you’d like to see from MIGHTY FIT.

MIGHTY TRENDING

Russia now blames Turkey for drone attacks, not US

The Russian military announced on Jan. 10 that Turkish-backed rebels attacked its Hmeimim air base and Tartus naval facility in Syria over the weekend with 13 drones.


“The recent drone attack on Russian bases in Syria was launched from an area near Idlib, which is controlled by Turkish-backed rebel forces,” according to RT, adding that Moscow complained to Turkey about the incident. The drone attack reportedly took place overnight from Jan. 5 to Jan. 6.

The Russian military said that the attack originated from the village of Muazzara, which is located in the Idlib region of Syria.

Related: US denies involvement in drone attacks on Russian bases

Russian and Syrian bombing runs have increased in Idlib in the last week, resulting in the deaths of many civilians, according to the Syrian Observatory For Human Rights. ISIS has also recently retaken portions of Idlib, despite Russian President Vladimir Putin’s declaration of victory in Syria late last year.

It is curious that Russia would blame Turkey, given that the two countries have improved relations over the last year.

“We often overestimate how much governments in capitals have control over the rebel groups they sponsor,” Dmitry Gorenburg, a senior research scientist at CNA, told Business Insider.

“Given Turkey’s deteriorating relationship with the U.S., it [would be odd] for Turkey to lash out at Russia,” Gorenburg said.

Russia shifts the blame from U.S. to Turkey

The development comes one day after the Russian Ministry of Defense implied that the U.S. had helped coordinate the drone attacks on Hmeimim air base and Tartus naval facility.

Explosives attached to drones used in an attack on Russian military bases in Syria. (Photo from Russian Ministry of Defense)

The MoD also said that a U.S. spy plane flew over Syria around the time of the attack, which helped the rebels target the drones.

“Any suggestion the U.S., the Coalition or our partnered forces played a role in an attack on a Russian base is without any basis in fact and utterly irresponsible,” Defense Department spokesman Eric Pahon told Business Insider in an email, adding over the phone that the insinuation is “absolute bonkers.”

“This was not a super sophisticated attack,” Gorenburg said, adding that the rebels could have easily launched and targeted the bases themselves.

Russia has released pictures of the drones, which were made of wood, taped together, and equipped with low-tech bombs.

“My hunch is that [Russia] was embarrassed by the attack,” Gorenburg said, and that the MoD needed to attribute such an attack to “a major power.”

MIGHTY HISTORY

This is how Teddy Roosevelt wins a bar fight

Bullying is nothing new; even the Old West had its share of bullies. When one of those Old West villains made the mistake of poking fun at the glasses of a stout man of average height in a Mingusville, Montana, hotel one day, he got run out of town on a train.


The fight began with what might be the oldest taunt against people who wear glasses. The fact that this particular bully said it to young Teddy Roosevelt in 1884 just goes to show how old the name “four eyes” really is. But the bully had no idea who was wearing those glasses. TR didn’t come looking for a fight, but he always looked to end them.

Bullies learn the hard way.

This is the guy who cured his own asthma using just willpower, after all.

By 1884, Teddy Roosevelt did not yet have the bold international reputation he would have in later years, but he was still a successful boxer and martial artist. He wore his signature round spectacles, as he always had, even when he was ranching in the Dakota Territory. The bully in question could not have known about TR’s dedication to his personal “Big Stick” policy.

Roosevelt was on a sort of hiatus from political life, having supported a losing candidate in the Republican Party. His wife Alice died during childbirth earlier that year. His mother died just days later. He left the world of New York politics to start a second ranch out west, where he did more than play cowboy in the Dakota Badlands. It was there he learned to rope, ride, and hunt in the Wild West. He even wrote three books about his time there.

Don’t talk sh*t.

When he came into Nolan’s Hotel in what was then Mingusville, Montana, he was on a self-driven riding trip through the Badlands and Western Dakota areas. Late one cool evening, as he walked upstairs to the bar area, he heard two shots ring out. He noticed the people in the room were looking around with fake smiles. A man with two cocked pistols in his hands was apparently shooting at the clock on the wall.

As soon as he saw the young Roosevelt, he told the room that “Four Eyes” was going to buy drinks for everyone. Roosevelt just laughed it off and took a seat by the stove — but the man followed him. He stood over the future president and told him again that “Four Eyes” was going to buy the drinks, guns still in each hand. Teddy laughed and stood up.

TR was well-known for his boxing exploits later in life.

“Well, if I’ve got to, I’ve got to,” Roosevelt told the man as he stood.

Instead of laughing it off, Roosevelt hit the man with a hard right to the jaw as he rose, then followed it up with a left and another right. The guns went off, but Roosevelt was unsure if the man was actually trying to shoot him. With Roosevelt’s final right, the man stumbled into the bar, hitting his head and knocking himself senseless. With that, the bar owners dragged the man out into a nearby shed and put him on a freight train the next morning.

MIGHTY TACTICAL

The Navy just picked its new anti-ship missile

The United States Navy has made it official: The Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (often called NSM) is its new choice for taking out enemy ships at distance. The decision, announced last week, means that both the Littoral Combat Ship and the Navy’s new frigate will pack a powerful, anti-ship punch.

This isn’t the first time Kongsberg has won a deal from the United States Navy. In 1986, the Navy turned to that company’s Penguin anti-ship missile to arm its SH-60/MH-60 Seahawk helicopters. That same missile is also used on Norwegian missile boats, coastal batteries, and F-16 Fighting Falcons.


The AGM-119 Penguin missile, which gave SH-60 and MH-60 helicopters a potent anti-ship punch, was built by Kongsberg and used by the U.S. Navy.

(U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate 2nd Class Lisa Aman)

For some time now, there was a competition underway between the NSM, an extended-range Harpoon, and a surface-launched version of the AGM-158C Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile — the makers of which were vying for a contract with the Navy. All three had some good selling points: The NSM is a smaller, compact missile that fits better on smaller ships, while the extended-range Harpoon is a natural evolution from the RGM-84s currently launched by most surface ships. The LRASM has the longest range (over 500 miles) and packs the biggest punch (a 1,000-pound warhead). In the end, however, it seems the NSM has won out.

The NSM uses infrared guidance to home in on its target, has a range of over 100 nautical miles, and packs a 265-pound warhead. The system can not only be fired from surface ships. With a total weight of 770 pounds, it’s light enough to be carried by the Navy’s MH-60R Seahawk helicopters.

This model of a MH-60 Seahawk at the SeaAirSpace 2017 expo shows it carrying Kongsberg NSMs.

(Photo by Harold C. Hutchison)

The current contract for the NSM is valued at just under .5 million, but that could increase to just under 0 million as littoral combat ships and future frigates are also armed with this missile.

Check out the video below to see a test firing of this new missile.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuMU-lc8DZw

www.youtube.com

MIGHTY HISTORY

The Navy’s F11F was so fast it could shoot itself down – and did

By the 1950s, the Cold War was in full swing, and the Soviets appeared to have an edge in fighter plane technology. The USSR debuted a new plane, the MiG-15. This new fighter had a design that no one had yet seen flying. Its swept-back wingspan allowed it to achieve speeds approaching the speed of sound. It was also incredibly effective against all the fighters of that age. The Navy needed to figure out how to beat it to protect its carrier.

They turned to defense contractor Grumman, who soon turned its designs inside-out and trying to take the new MiG down.


And they started with the F9F Cougar.

Looks cool on a carrier, looks worse getting shot down by MiGs.

(U.S. Navy)

What came of the project was the F11F Tiger, which incorporated the latest and greatest in naval aviation technology and tactics into the basic designs of the carrier-based F9F Cougar. The Cougar has a windswept wing design of its own, as the MiG-15 had completely outclassed straight-wing fighters in the skies over Korea. The Navy wanted some fighters who could protect its ships in aerial combat. Grumman began its effort with the F9F Cougar but went back to the drawing board and came out with the Tiger, a supersonic fighter that could be launched from a carrier and bring the fight to the MiGs.

Unfortunately, its high top speed is how the F11F Tiger became the first fighter to shoot itself down.

The F11F

(U.S. Navy)

On Sept. 21, 1956, test pilot Tom Attridge began a shallow dive in his F11F. As he did, he fired two short bursts from the aircraft’s four 20mm cannons, and thought nothing of it – until he got to the end of his dive, and the bursts began to shoot up his aircraft. He started at 20,000 feet and then went into a Mach 1 dive as he fired. He accelerated with afterburner and at 13,000 feet, fired to empty. He continued his dive. but at 7,000 feet, something struck his canopy glass and one of his engine intake lips. The aircraft began to lose power, and Attridge headed back to base to land it.

But in order to make it back without shattering the canopy, he had to slow down his Tiger to a crawl, and the engine would only produce 78 percent of its normal power. He wouldn’t make it back to base at that rate. Two miles away from the runway, the engine went out completely.

(U.S. Navy)

Attridge didn’t bail out – test pilots are crazy – in the slowed aircraft, he settled into some trees. Despite some injuries, he exited the plane once on the ground and was picked up by a rescue helicopter. The plane, as it turned out, was hit in the windshield, the right intake, and the nose cone by its own rounds. The low pitch of the plane and its trajectory, combined with the trajectory of the bullets and the speed of the Tiger’s descent at half the speed of sound right into the guns’ target area, meant that the plane would easily catch up with its own burst of 20mm fire.

The pilot shot himself down in about 11 seconds.

Intel

Here’s why hundreds of strangers attended this homeless veteran’s funeral

Jerry Billing served in the Navy during his young life as an Aviation Machinists Mate. He died homeless and alone at the age of 69. No family showed up to claim his remains.


But more than 750 strangers came to his funeral.

“This is a way that we can honor these men and women that leave this world without any family, it’s kind of the final respect,” funeral home director Todd Tramel said.

Here’s how Dignity Memorial and a community came together to pay their respects to a man they never knew:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ig-kUVPP_w

NOW: This dying Vietnam veteran is giving away everything he owns to charity

OR: This journalist nails the reason why young men want to go to war

Articles

11 fighter pilot rules that can be applied to everyday life

Artist’s conception of an F-35 taking it to the Russians.


Fighter pilots have a lot of cool sayings like, “Don’t ask somebody if he’s a fighter pilot. If he is, he’ll tell you. If he’s not, why embarrass him?” and “Faster fighters, older whiskey, younger women,” but not all of these can be applied to real life.

Fortunately, they also have a few saying that can be applied to real life. Here are 11 of them:

1. Train like you fight

This saying was made popular by “Duke” Cunningham, Navy Vietnam-era ace who served a stint in federal prison for misdeeds committed while serving as a congressman from California. It seems obvious, but think of how many processes your organization has that don’t really matter when it comes to executing the mission.

2. Don’t be both out of airspeed and ideas

That’s a bad combo. As Dean Wormer said in the movie “Animal House,” “Fat, dumb, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.”

3. Keep your knots up

Speed is life. It gives you options. In business “speed” can be resources, revenue, people. Having X+1 is a good idea.

4. Keep your scan going

If you’re only focused on one thing, something else is about to jump up and bite you. While you’re staring at the bandit in the heads-up display, you’re missing the fact you’re about to run out of gas or get shot by the other bandit who just rolled in behind you.

5. Lost sight, lost fight

Regardless of Gucci technology or whatever, you can’t kill what you can’t see.

6. You can only tie the record for low flight

So don’t fly into the ground.

7. There’s no kill like a guns kill

This is as pure as it gets for a fighter pilot. Feels. So. Good. And, remember, stealth doesn’t work against bullets.

8. Don’t turn back into a fight you’ve already won

Know when to bug out and then do it. Live to fight another day.

9. You miss 100 percent of the shots you don’t take

F-14 assigned to VF-1 shooting an AIM-54 Phoenix missile in the early days.

You also miss 100 percent of the shots you take out of the missile’s operating envelope . . . which gets back to No. 1: Train like you fight.

10. A letter of reprimand is better than no mail at all

As John Paul Jones once said, “He who will not risk, cannot win.” Nobody ever made history or changed the world by only worrying about his or her career.

11. If you know you’re about to die, make your last transmission a good one

No whining. Just key the radio and say, “Have a beer on me, boys.”

MIGHTY TRENDING

Mattis stresses need for Geneva process in Syria fight

The fight continues in the Middle Euphrates River Valley to wrest the last 2 percent of land once controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria from the grasp of the terror group, Defense Secretary James N. Mattis said in Washington.

“That fighting is on-going and as we forecasted, it’s been a tough fight and we are winning,” the secretary told reporters.

The secretary said Syrian leaders have to be well aware of the U.S. position on the regime using chemical weapons. He stressed “there is zero evidence” that any opposition groups possess chemical weapons or the technology to employ those weapons.


The U.S. goal in Syria remains to end the tragedy that would have ended years ago, if Russia and Iran had not intervened, Mattis said. “We want to support the Geneva process — the U.N.-mandated process. … In that scope what we want to do is make certain that ISIS does not come back and upset everything again.”

Combating ISIS

The U.S. and allies are training local security forces inside Syria. The United States is working with Turkey to launch joint patrols in Manbij. “I think we are close on that; it’s complex,” Mattis said. “Once we get those patrols going along the line of contact and we take out the rest of the [ISIS] caliphate, our goal would be to set up local security elements that prevent the return of ISIS while at the same time diplomatically supporting … the Geneva process.”

Defense Secretary James N. Mattis speaks to reporters during a news conference at the Pentagon, Sept. 24, 2018.

(DoD photo by Jim Garamone)

The secretary said Russia’s vetoes of United Nations resolutions early in the process with Syria, “kept the U.N. marginalized at a time when it might have been able to stop what unfolded. Iran then sent in their proxy forces.”

Iranians are in Syria. Iran is propping up the Assad regime with forces, money, weapons, and proxies. “Part of this overarching problem is we have to address Iran,” Mattis said. “Everywhere you go in the Middle East, where there is instability, you find Iran.”

Iran has a role to play in the peace process, the secretary said. And that “is to stop fomenting trouble,” he added.

Mattis condemned the terrorist attack inside Iran. “We condemn terrorist bombings anywhere they occur,” he said. “It’s ludicrous to allege that we had anything to do with it, and we stands with the Iranian people, but not the Iranian regime that has practiced this very sort of thing through proxies and all for too many years.”

And, the secretary praised the U.S. military response to Hurricane Florence.

“We rate ourselves as having done a good job so far,” he said. “The tactics were to surround it on the seaward side and the landward side, and keep people out of the area forecasted to be hit. So we had troops who were ready to go and follow the storm in from both directions, and we met all the requests from the Federal Emergency Management Agency … in a timely manner. We still have troops committed to it, but clearly it is winding down.”

Military equipment, to include deep water vehicles, boats and more, remain available if needed, he said.

The secretary announced he will travel to France and Belgium to take part in NATO’s Defense Ministerial Meeting.

This article originally appeared on the United States Department of Defense. Follow @DeptofDefense on Twitter.