Chủ Nhật, 2 tháng 9, 2018

Auto news on Youtube Sep 2 2018

The US Navy: the world's most powerful fighting

force on the surface, beneath the surface, and in the skies above the sea.

The US Marines: tip of the spear of American military power.

How do the two services compare to each other though?

That's what we'll find out, in this episode of The Infographics Show- the US Navy vs the

US Marines.

The US Navy was officially established on October 13, 1775, when the Second Continental

Congress passed a resolution creating the Continental Navy.

Mostly a token force that met with little actual success during the American Revolutionary

War, the Continental Navy was disbanded shortly after the war with its last ship auctioned

off in 1785.

Almost ten years later, with threats to the new republic's merchant shipping from north

African Barbary pirates, first American president George Washington created the Naval Act of

1794 which created a permanent standing Navy.

Often forgotten by politicians, the navy would languish throughout the 1800s with outdated

and few ship designs, until the start of the 20th century, when by the end of WWI, the

US Navy had more sailors and an equal number of capital ships as the vaunted British Royal

Navy.

Earning stunning victory after victory during World War II in the Pacific against the powerful

Imperial Japanese Navy, the US Navy would go on to become the world's most powerful,

and important, naval force.

Although technically a detachment of the US Navy, the US Marines trace their founding

to a resolution passed by the Second Continental Congress on November 10, 1775, ordering Captain

Samuel Nicholas to raise two battalions of Marines capable of fighting both in ship-to-ship

battles and land actions.

Also disbanded after the Revolutionary War, a need for a shipborne fighting force arose

towards the end of the 18th century, as the fledgling US prepared for the Quasi-War with

France, waged exclusively on the high seas between 1798 and 1800.

The US Marines would come into their own during the War of 1812 against Britain, where during

the Battle of New Orleans, they were directly credited with holding General (and future

President) Andrew Jackson's center defensive line.

Leading US actions in the Pacific during World War II, American marines would conduct an

island-hopping campaign against entrenched Japanese forces, leading to the bloodiest

and most violent battles of the second World War.

So how do the two services compare?

For starters, the US Navy maintains an 8 week basic training course for new recruits, while

Marine basic training lasts for 13 weeks.

Navy basic training focuses on shipborne operations, with recruits undergoing classes in fire fighting,

ship-to-ship communication, and ship and aircraft identification.

Marine basic training, meanwhile, focuses on marksmanship, battlefield first aid, and

combat tactics.

This training focus directly reflects each service's mission statement, with the Navy's

mission being to maintain, train and equip combat-ready naval forces capable of winning

wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas.

The Marines' mission, on the other hand, is to act as America's expeditionary force, forward

deployed to win battles on land, sea, and air.

In terms of size, the US Navy has nearly 326,000 active duty personnel with nearly 99,000 reservists.

They operate a total of 480 ships and 2,600 aircraft.

The Marines on the other hand are about half that size, with 182,000 active duty personnel

and 38,500 reservists.

Other than a few patrol craft, they operate none of their own ships and instead are attached

to US Navy vessels, but they do operate 1,300 aircraft.

Marine aviation is split up into helicopter and fixed-wing attack aircraft squadrons.

For helicopter-based close air support, forward air control, escort and reconnaissance, the

Marines are equipped with the AH-1W SuperCobra, AH-1Z Viper, and UH-1Y Venom light attack

helicopter.

The AV-8B Harrier II combat jet gives the Marines the flexibility to also provide close

air support, air interdiction, and surveillance operations; as a 'jump jet' design capable

of Short Take Off/Vertical Landing (or STOVL) operations from amphibious assault ships or

remote, rough airfields, the Harrier perfectly suits the Marine Corps' expeditionary nature.

Beginning in 2016, the Marines began replacing their vaunted Harriers with a STOVL version

of the F-35 Lightning II.

To provide air superiority for their ground forces and to strike at surface targets, the

US Marines are equipped with the F/A-18 Hornet and now, the F-35B Lightning II.

In effect, the US Marines are a ground combat force with their own air force, more than

a match on their own for most other nation's militaries.

The US Navy has no attack helicopters, but does operate a large fleet of choppers for

search and rescue, anti-submarine warfare, anti-mine countermeasures, and transport.

To establish and maintain air superiority over a nation's coastal areas, and to defend

US forces at sea from enemy air attack, the Navy operates the F/A-18 and F/A-18E/F Super

Hornet.

As multi-mission platforms, the navy's Hornets and Superhornets can also be tasked with strike

missions against enemy land targets or ships.

While the navy is slowly phasing in the F-35C Lightning II, it does not plan to completely

eliminate its fleet of Super Hornets, and to date has a further 10 new Super Hornets

on order.

Tasked with ensuring free-trade for all nations across the world's oceans, the US Navy deploys

very frequently.

Sailors can be deployed between 6 and nine months at a time aboard a ship, and return

home for four to five months before deploying again.

As an expeditionary force, Marines have to be constantly ready to deploy to anywhere

the US needs manpower fast, and their deployments can range from 30 days up to no longer than

2 years, depending on the state of global affairs and the threat or prosecution of an

ongoing war.

The US Navy is the most powerful sea-based fighting force in history and ensures that

nations around the world have free access to the open sea.

American Marines have for over two centuries been the tip of American firepower, fighting

in every climate and settled continent in the world.

While their missions and equipment may differ, both services are indispensable arms of the

US military that work closely together to achieve victory.

So, would you ever consider joining the US Navy or Marines?

Let us know in the comments.

Also, be sure to watch our other video called What is a day in the life of a US Marine like?

Thanks for watching, and as always, don't forget to like, share and subscribe.

See you next time!

For more infomation >> US Navy vs US Marines - What's The Difference & How Do They Compare? - Army / Military Comparison - Duration: 7:05.

-------------------------------------------

Why Are U.S. Bombs Being Dropped on Yemen? | NowThis World - Duration: 6:31.

On August 9, 2018 -- These young boys boarded a school bus for what was meant to be a daylong

field trip filled with excitement.

But that day of fun, soon turned into a day of horror and tragedy.

A Saudi Arabian-led military coalition reportedly dropped a 500 pound laser guided bomb on the

bus, killing at least 40 children, 11 bystanders and injuring about 79 other people.

The horrific images that emerged from the scene of the attack not only drew the world's

attention to this tragedy, but also to the international partnerships that are supporting

Saudi Arabia's relentless bombardment of its neighbor to the south.

Especially after subsequent reporting revealed that the bomb used in the attack might have

been supplied by the United States.

I'm Judah with NowThis World, and in this episode we're going to look into this horrific

attack and the role that the U.S. continues to play in Yemen.

The conflict in the country has created what the United Nations has called "the worst

humanitarian crisis" in the world today.

"We are here, afraid in Yemen.

They are targeting bridges.

They are targeting schools.

They are targeting roads."

Conservative estimates say that this war has resulted in death of at least 5,000 civilians,

created a famine in the country that has claimed the lives of about 50,000 people, pushed 8.4

million Yemenis to the brink of starvation.

It also sparked a cholera epidemic that has affected more than 1 million people.

And the United States has supported this Saudi Arabian-led military campaign since March

2015.

This recent conflict began with Yemen's civil war, which launched out of the instability

that followed a popular uprising in 2011.

That uprising, eventually led to the removal of Yemen's longserving authoritarian leader,

Ali Abdullah saleh.

He eventually ceded power, handing over the presidency to his deputy, Abd-Raabu Mansour

Hadi.

But he was never able to fully assert his authority in the divided country, that was

dealing with an armed rebellion by a Shiite, Iranian-backed group called the Houthis.

By September 2014, that group gained control of large parts of Yemen, including its capital

Sana'a.

And by March of 2015, Hadi fled to Saudi Arabia, where he's been ever since.

And that is when the war got worse.

A Saudi Arabian and United Arab Emirate-led military coalition began an airstrike campaign

against Houthi targets in the country.

Enter the United States, and other western powers.

The U.S. sells weapons to Saudi Arabia, provides logistical support in the war, and even refuels

Coalition fighter jets during flight.

To put it all very simply; The Saudi Coalition is dropping American-made bombs from planes

refueled by American soldiers, which kill innocent civilians, including children.

And while this might come as a surprise for some, it shouldn't.

That's because globally, the U.S. exports more than a third of all major weapons -

and the biggest beneficiary?

You guessed it: Saudi Arabia.

The U.S. supplies more than 60% of Saudi Arabia's arms imports – billions of dollars worth

of weapons including cluster bombs and anti-tank missiles, as well as armored vehicles, tanks,

attack aircrafts, and other equipment.

Experts say that though sales of equipment is easy to track, the Pentagon doesn't publish

when the arms have been delivered or how they've been used.

They've also claimed numerous times that U.S. officials don't track or investigate

airstrikes by the Saudi-led coalition.

But, in recent months, exclusive reporting from outlets like the Intercept and New York

Times have challenged that, indicating that officials may know more than they say they

do, and may be more directly involved in Yemen than they say they are.

Some of these weapons are reported to have ended up in the hands of ISIS and al-Qaeda

militants.

To complicate things even further, according to recent AP reports, the U.S. has conflicting

interests on the Peninsula, which include both counterterrorism efforts to eliminate

al-Qaeda, and simultaneously driving out the Houthis – a fight al-Qaeda has joined.

U.S. weapons support ramped up under the Obama administration, under which, according to

the Center for International Policy calculations, more than $115 billion in military sales were

offered to Saudi Arabia from 2009 to 2016.

Support for Saudi and the UAE further expanded under the Trump administration, with the state

department approving billions of dollars in arms sales.

President Trump has also met with Saudi King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman

on several occasions.

His first overseas trip as president, in fact, was to Riyadh.

The Trump administration has argued that selling precision-guided munitions could result in

fewer civilian deaths, because the targeting is more precise.

But experts we've spoken to say that's not the case.

"All that argument about helping them be more careful is nonsense.

And we've seen this by the increase in civilian casualties and the kinds of targets like school

busses and weddings and so forth that have been hit.

From my point of view when you're hitting those kinds of civilian targets repeatedly,

to me that looks like a war crime."

So what actions, if any, are U.S. lawmakers taking?

Senator Elizabeth Warren recently wrote a letter to the U.S. Central Command asking

for answers about an intelligence report uncovered by The Intercept that appears to contradict

the Pentagon's reported lack of involvement in the Saudi-led airstrikes.

"I think the Pentagon is well aware that U.S. bombs are being used to hit civilian

targets.

This fiction that they're putting forward that 'we don't even track those things,'

first of all is unconscionable.

I mean, if you're selling the weapons, you should try to track how they're used.

Second of all, as Senator Warren suggests, doesn't square with the truth."

Earlier, in March 2018, a group of Senators led a bipartisan effort to pass a resolution

ending U.S. involvement in the war.

The resolution was tabled, but it wasn't the first time members of Congress tried to

pass legislation to get out of Yemen, and it certainly won't be the last.

"So the responsibility is clearly on our shoulders, the shoulders of our companies,

our government.

And the citizens of the United States have a responsibility to push their government

to stop enabling these kinds of crimes."

For more infomation >> Why Are U.S. Bombs Being Dropped on Yemen? | NowThis World - Duration: 6:31.

-------------------------------------------

The United States (USA) vs The World - Who Would Win? Military / Army Comparison - Duration: 17:42.

A Superpower is defined as a state with the ability to exert influence or project power

on a global scale, and if needed, in more than one region of the globe at a time.

The United States- currently the world's sole Superpower- fits this description, with an

official military doctrine that states its military forces must be ready and capable

to fight two major theater wars simultaneously, a capability no other nation on earth can

even approach.

But what would happen if the United States found itself in a war against the entire rest

of the world?

How would that war potentially play out?

The rules of this Wargame will be as follows: no nuclear weapons allowed, and war will be

simulated to have broken out after weeks of preamble, as in a surprise attack, the United

States with its forces spread around the world would likely lose its non-homeland forces

entirely, but not before delivering crippling blows to most of the world's major powers

and knocking them out of the conflict early.

The US's main opposition would be in the form of a European coalition to include Russia

and a China/India alliance.

The rest of the world's contribution would be mostly in material supplies or financial

backing, as while even nations like Japan boast a formidable military capability, they

mostly lack the ability to actually deploy that power outside of their own borders.

In fact, that would be the biggest hurdle to any global offensive against the United

States- with historical military preparations focused on conflicts such as NATO vs Russia,

or China vs India, most militaries around the world lack the ability to transport military

hardware across the oceans in a meaningful quantity, making a decisive assault against

the US homeland impossible.

Meanwhile due to its commitments to fighting wars well outside its own borders for the

last 80 years, the United States operates the world's largest air and naval transport

fleets that number in the hundreds of ships and aircraft- more than most modern nations

combined.

This lack of mobility will prove to be a major weakness for the global alliance, and severely

hinder their ability to respond to US actions.

Today the United States operates its forces in every geographic area of the world, and

has split its command structure into nine combatant commands, six responsible for global

geographic areas of responsibility.

In the weeks leading up to the outbreak of war, the United States would likely pull its

forces out of Europe and non-American bases in the Pacific, disbanding its European, African,

and Southern Commands.

Pacific Command, Northern Command, and Central Command would absorb these forces.

Battlefield 1: Middle East

US Central Command would receive an influx of former European assets, with the US bolstering

its forces in the Middle East in bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, with one goal- destroying

the major oil refineries and distribution centers while denying access to the sea lanes

that transport oil from the region.

81% of the world's oil reserves are located in OPEC countries, and over 60% of the world's

oil passes through the Arabian Sea alone; the US's strategic goals would be simple:

shut off the global oil tap.

With the world's 12th largest oil reserves, the United States could easily supply itself,

while denying the rest of the world access to vital Middle East oil.

Europe, which would represent the United States' most formidable adversary, relies on Middle

East oil for 40-50% of its total annual use, meaning an American stranglehold on the region

would cripple any European war effort as reserves run out and their economies begin to collapse.

China would face a similar problem, as 50% of its total oil imports all come from the

Middle East, making the region the first front in our war.

At the outbreak of war, the United States would first strike at oil production and distribution

facilities across the Middle East via carrier-based strike aircraft backed up by former European

theater aircraft now based off American bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.

With the world's largest air tanker fleet and flanking the all-important Persian Gulf

from both Iraq and Afghanistan, American aircraft could penetrate deep into Middle East territory

with impunity, striking at targets from the Straits of Hormuz all the way to the Suez

Canal itself.

Though regional forces would be able to offer some initial resistance, most operate outdated

Soviet-era or non-modern American built aircraft- with the exception of current US allies such

as Saudi Arabia, who would be able to field modern variant F15s, Typhoon Eurofighters,

and Italian/British Tornado multirole strike aircraft in small numbers.

Without European support however, the air war would go very poorly for Middle East powers

for several reasons:

Firstly, lacking a joint unified command, each nation would be unable to coordinate

its air assets with its neighbors, resulting in confusion and low sortie rates.

Most middle east powers also field very few electronic warfare or early warning and control

aircraft; Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel would represent the most formidable threats

to American air power, yet neither nation fields dedicated electronic attack aircraft,

while the US is equipped with over 200- mostly F-35 variants and EA-18G Growlers.

Without adequate numbers of AWACS and electronic warfare assets, Middle East powers would be

unable to coordinate the large amounts of sorties needed to counter US air power, and

they'd find their aircraft and ground-based air defenses actively jammed or spoofed by

American EW assets.

In the opening days of the Middle East war, the US would likely see moderate casualties

amongst its air forces, as it would be mostly operating against obsolete aircraft and disorganized

or inexperienced air forces.

The greatest threat to US craft would come from ground-based air defenses, which range

in obsoletism yet remain a formidable obstacle to US air power.

With a concentration of American power in the region, it's a forgone conclusion that

Middle East powers would have begun to move their air defenses to protect vital oil shipping

routes and manufacturing/distribution centers; yet Desert Storm proved how effective the

United States can be at dismantling a nation's air defense network, and most nations in the

region have invested little into modernizing their defense infrastructure in the years

since.

The US would suffer most of its losses to its 4th-generation aircraft such as its F-15,

F-16 and F-18s, while its 5thGen F-35s and F-22s would prove much more difficult to contend

with.

With an inventory of 385 active F-35s, over 1,800 more on order, and 197 F-22s, the US

retains the only operational 5th-generation air fleets, with current allies fielding a

token force of F-35s purchased from America, and the Russians and Chinese still not fielding

combat-ready 5thGen aircraft.

Despite its technological and operational superiority however, sheer numbers would present

a threat to American forces; so instead of seizing key oil production or distribution

facilities, the US would instead focus its efforts on keeping those facilities and trade

route choke points shut down while defending against attacks on its air bases.

A single sunk supertanker could block the Suez Canal for weeks, shutting down one of

the most important oil trade routes in the world, while constant harassment by American

air power would make the Straits of Hormuz impassable.

With few major naval threats in the Pacific, American Pacific naval forces would be split

between containing China and bolstering US Central Command forces in establishing a blockade

of trade routes across the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

With 20 carriers, 11 of which are supercarriers- more than the rest of the world combined-

a blockade of the Indian and Pacific oceans would be easily achieved.

With a staggering 80 percent of global oil trade passing through the Indian and Pacific

oceans, the rest of the world would be forced to abandon any plans to attack the US homeland

and first try to dislodge the Americans from the Middle East; yet they would be doing so

while operating on a ticking clock as domestic oil reserves begin running dry.

In a prolonged conflict, immediate development of oil reserves in Russia would begin, though

with only 80 billion barrels of proven reserves vs over 800 billion in the Middle East, it

would be imperative for the global coalition to dislodge the US from the region or face

eventual oil starvation and defeat.

Europe would be faced with the difficult decision of committing the majority of its air and

naval power to a Middle East campaign, yet with an American navy larger than the next

8 navies in the world combined, they would be doing so at the risk of leaving their coasts

vulnerable to harassment from American attack submarines and carrier strike groups.

American attack submarines, in particular, would prove to be an overwhelming force, with

55 nuclear attack subs alone.

Europe, to include Russia, fields nearly 100 submarines, yet only about a third of those

are nuclear-powered, and range from 10 to 25 years behind US subs in tech.

Lacking in major transport capabilities and the ability to adequately protect either their

sea lanes or any attempts to move troops by sea, the global coalition would be extremely

hard pressed to dislodge the US from the Middle East.

While an eventual overwhelming of US ground forces would be possible, it would take weeks

of buildup and slow moving of forces via ground routes, to avoid American submarines.

Victory in the Middle East would be possible for the global coalition, but would only come

at great expense of dwindling oil reserves, and any attempts to reopen the Middle East

trade routes would certainly fail, as the US would concentrate its nuclear attack subs

and carrier battle groups in the region.

The coalition would be forced to rely on existing land-based pipelines, though these would not

be enough to sustain the world economy, and the United States would certainly commit its

stealthy B2 bombers to the destruction of these pipelines and any attempts at building

new ones.

In short, a land victory would be probable for the global coalition, but without the

ability to challenge the US Navy, global trade routes would be permanently shut down, effectively

crippling the economies of coalition nations and the war effort.

Battlefield 2: West Pacific

The West Pacific and South China Sea is the most economically important water way in the

world, with a full 1/3rd of all global trade passing through the area, or about $5.3 trillion

dollars.

China, South Korea, and Japan would especially have a vested interest in keeping these sea

lanes open, yet none of those nations field a true 'blue water', or deep-ocean navy.

In a global war, the United States would invest the majority of its expeditionary firepower

in the West Pacific, having little to fear from an Atlantic incursion by European powers

due to their lack of major military transport capability, and navies designed for decades

to engage Russian ships in littoral combat rather than blue water operations.

Japan would pose a significant challenge for US forces due to its very modern and robust

self-defense forces, yet the island nation could be largely ignored due to Japan's lack

of air tankers limiting the range of its strike aircraft and 70 year self-defense military

doctrine, which saw the nation only recently begin to build an expeditionary capability.

With 155 F-15s making up the bulk of Japan's Air Force, and only a combat range of 790

miles (1270 km), it is doubtful the island nation would risk its 5 operational airborne

refueling tankers to attempt offensive operations against the US Navy and its over 1,000 fighter

aircraft, instead holding its air forces in reserve in case of an American attack on the

homeland.

The US's first goal in the region would be to cut off all trade routes passing through

the South China Sea.

China would represent the US's biggest global adversary, yet like every other global power-

to include Russia- it too lacks the navy and the transport capability to actually threaten

the US homeland.

In order to deny the nation the opportunity to build this capability, the US would immediately

move to cut off Chinese trade through the South China Sea- something China would be

particularly vulnerable to as over 60% of its trade is delivered by sea.

Though China lacks a navy formidable enough to threaten US Pacific forces, it more than

makes up for this shortcoming with its ballistic missile forces.

It's DF-26 ballistic missiles each have a range of 3000-4000 km, and would threaten

any US base or ship as far out as Guam.

At the outbreak of war, China would immediately launch a withering missile strike against

American facilities on Guam.

While Guam would be defended by THAAD, or Terminal High Altitude Area Defense anti-missile

systems, AEGIS-equipped destroyers, and Patriot missile batteries, China would rely on heavy

saturation strikes and overwhelm American missile defense systems, decimating the majority

of American ground targets on the small island and rendering it inoperative as a military

forward staging area for weeks.

This would force America to rely on its naval assets in the region, which would be the secondary

targets of China's opening barrage.

Though long-touted as 'carrier-killers', China's DF-26 and DF-21 ballistic missiles each rely

on a very long and complex 'kill chain', or chain of military assets required to recon

a target, track it, and guide a missile to it.

In order to accomplish this, China operates 30 Yaogan tracking and reconnaissance satellites

grouped into constellations that, working together, would provide China 16 opportunities

per 24 hour period to accurately target a US Navy vessel to within 10 kilometers anywhere

in the Pacific.

The US would certainly seek to counter this capability with deployment of its anti-satellite

weapon systems, of which it remains extremely secretive about.

It is impossible to infer just how effective US anti-sat weapons truly are, due to a lack

of information, but it is known that in the early 2000s, the US Air Force successfully

tested a deployment of mini-sats designed to kill or hijack enemy satellites, and in

2008 the US successfully targeted and destroyed a defunct satellite with an SM-3 missile launched

from the USS Lake Eerie in the Pacific.

With every US destroyer and cruiser able to carry the SM-3, this could potentially pose

a serious threat to Chinese space assets and degrade the capabilities of their ballistic

missile forces.

In a push into the Pacific, however, the US would still suffer heavy casualties amongst

its fleet due to Chinese long-range missile strikes.

It's probable then that while it works to destroy Chinese space assets from afar, America

would instead send in its nuclear attack submarine fleet to blockade Chinese waters.

China operates about 60 submarines, yet for years those subs did not go on patrols or

even leave port as they were often sidelined by maintenance issues.

Only as recently as 2011 did Chinese subs actually begin to leave port, giving US subs

the opportunity to tail them and discover that Chinese submarines were surprisingly

easy to find and track due to their noisy nature; defense experts estimated that Chinese

sub technology was 10 years behind Russia and about 20 years behind the US.

The US meanwhile operates 55 nuclear attack submarines, with most of these being of the

modern Virginia class.

Armed with torpedoes and a complement of Tomahawk cruise missiles, Virginia attack subs could

easily threaten Chinese surface and subsurface vessels, and join its Ohio-class ballistic

missile submarines in cruise missile attacks against Chinese inland industrial and military

installations.

While in recent years, China has invested heavily into improving its anti-submarine

warfare capabilities, it is still critically behind even regional powers, such as South

Korea and Japan, meaning that in the end there is likely little China could do to stop US

attack subs.

Though it could likely keep American carrier battle groups out of the South China Sea for

the first week or two of the war, China would be helpless to prevent a naval blockade by

US attack subs.

India, also reliant on South Pacific trade routes, would certainly dispatch its naval

forces to attempt to break a US blockade, but would face the same issues in challenging

US subs that China would.

Having only 15 active submarines and also lacking in modern anti-submarine warfare capabilities,

the Indian navy would quickly find itself overpowered by American attack subs.

Employing a combination of its submarine and anti-satellite assets, the US would likely

break through the Chinese ballistic missile shield within 30 days and enact a complete

blockade of the South Pacific, strangling regional powers economically.

With a blockade of Middle East oil exports, the global war would then become a war of

attrition, with the US starving out the world's major powers, while able to sustain itself

off its own domestic oil reserves.

Having little to fear from a European transAtlantic offensive due to Europe's lack of major military

transport capabilities, American forces would be free to initiate ground offensives against

Canada and Venezuela in order to seize its oil reserves as well.

Ultimately the US Navy, the largest and best equipped in the world, would be the deciding

factor in a global war.

With such overwhelming firepower superiority, the United States would be able to fight defensively,

and without launching any major ground offensives outside of North America.

Fielding a larger fleet than the next 8 navies combined, the US Navy, backed by the US Coast

Guard, would easily defend the Atlantic sea lanes from any European incursion, while enacting

blockades of major oil shipping routes through the Persian Gulf, and Indian and Pacific Oceans.

While the world would eventually be able to muster a large enough force to threaten the

US, current military capabilities across the globe would be insufficient to prevent these

naval blockades, and would require years of build up and expansion of navies from every

modern nation.

With the majority of global oil trade shut off by naval blockade however, European and

Asian economies would quickly shrink or outright collapse, making such a buildup improbable,

and ensuring an eventual US victory.

Yet that victory would come at a titanic cost to even the US's own economy, and in the end,

the entire global economy would likely shrink to levels not seen since the end of the second

world war.

So, how do you think this scenario would have played out?!

Let us know your thoughts in the comments!

Also, be sure to check out our other video called North Korea vs United States!

Thanks for watching, and, as always, don't forget to like, share, and subscribe.

See you next time!

For more infomation >> The United States (USA) vs The World - Who Would Win? Military / Army Comparison - Duration: 17:42.

-------------------------------------------

State primary voting - Duration: 0:55.

For more infomation >> State primary voting - Duration: 0:55.

-------------------------------------------

Keller @ Large: Preview of Secretary of State - Democratic Primary - Duration: 4:01.

For more infomation >> Keller @ Large: Preview of Secretary of State - Democratic Primary - Duration: 4:01.

-------------------------------------------

BATH AND BODY WORKS LABOR DAY 2018 SALE SHIP FROM US TO KENYA afriqueconnect com - Duration: 0:55.

SHIP FROM US TO KENYA

www.afriqueconnect.com

For more infomation >> BATH AND BODY WORKS LABOR DAY 2018 SALE SHIP FROM US TO KENYA afriqueconnect com - Duration: 0:55.

-------------------------------------------

US cancels $300million aid to Pakistan over 'failure to deal with terrorists' - Duration: 4:33.

</form> The US has cancelled $300 million in aid to Pakistan - claiming the government has not done enough to tackle terrorism

  The decision comes after Donald Trump suspended so-called Coalition Support Funds at the start of the year

 At the time, the US President accused Pakistan of rewarding past assistance with "nothing but lies and deceit"

 The Trump administration says Islamabad is granting safe haven to insurgents who are waging a 17-year-old war in neighboring Afghanistan, a charge Pakistan denies

 But U.S. officials had held out the possibility that Pakistan could win back that support if it changed its behavior

 , in particular, had an opportunity to authorize $300 million in CSF funds through this summer - if he saw concrete Pakistani actions to go after insurgents

 Mattis chose not to, a U.S. official told Reuters.  "Due to a lack of Pakistani decisive actions in support of the South Asia Strategy the remaining $300 (million) was reprogrammed," Pentagon spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Kone Faulkner said

 Faulkner said the Pentagon aimed to spend the $300 million on "other urgent priorities" if approved by Congress

 He said another $500 million in CSF was stripped by Congress from Pakistan earlier this year, to bring the total withheld to $800 million

 The disclosure came ahead of an expected visit by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the top U

S. military officer, General Joseph Dunford, to Islamabad. Mattis told reporters on Tuesday that combating militants would be a "primary part of the discussion

"  Experts on the Afghan conflict, America's longest war, argue that militant safe havens in Pakistan have allowed Taliban-linked insurgents in Afghanistan a place to plot deadly strikes and regroup after ground offensives

 The Pentagon's decision showed that the United States, which has sought to change Pakistani behavior, is still increasing pressure on Pakistan's security apparatus

 It also underscored that Islamabad has yet to deliver the kind of change sought by Washington

 "It is a calibrated, incremental ratcheting up of pressure on Pakistan," said Sameer Lalwani, co-director of the South Asia program at the Stimson Center think tank in Washington

  Reuters reported in August that the Trump administration has quietly started cutting scores of Pakistani officers from coveted training and educational programs that have been a hallmark of bilateral military relations for more than a decade

  The Pentagon made similar determinations on CSF in the past but this year's move could get more attention from Islamabad, and its new prime minister, Imran Khan, at a time when its economy is struggling

  Pakistan's foreign exchange reserves have plummeted over the past year and it will soon decide on whether to seek a bailout from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or friendly nations such as China

 "They are squeezing them when they know that they're vulnerable and it is probably a signal about what to expect should Pakistan come to the IMF for a loan," Lalwani said

 The United States has the largest share of votes at the IMF.  Khan, who once suggested he might order the shooting down of U

S. drones if they entered Pakistani airspace, has opposed the United States' open-ended presence in Afghanistan

 In his victory speech, he said he wanted "mutually beneficial" relations with Washington

 A Pakistani official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said he was unaware of a formal notification of the U

S. decision on assistance but said one was expected by the end of September.  Pakistan has received more than $33 billion in U

S. assistance since 2002, including more than $14 billion in CSF, a U.S. Defense Department program to reimburse allies that have incurred costs in supporting counter-insurgency operations

 Pakistan could again be eligible next year for CSF.

For more infomation >> US cancels $300million aid to Pakistan over 'failure to deal with terrorists' - Duration: 4:33.

-------------------------------------------

Microwaves suspected in attacks on US diplomats in Cuba and China - Duration: 3:59.

For more infomation >> Microwaves suspected in attacks on US diplomats in Cuba and China - Duration: 3:59.

-------------------------------------------

Amsterdam stabbings was 'terror attack' after victims identified as US tourists - Duration: 2:03.

</form> A man accused of stabbing two US tourists at Amsterdam's central railway station was motivated by terrorism, according to Dutch officials

 Investigators say the suspect, a 19-year-old from Afghanistan, had carried out a terror attack

 The man, named as Jawed S in local media, was shot and injured by police, and train services into the station were cancelled

 A statement from Amsterdam City Hall said: "Based on the suspect's first statements, he had a terrorist motive

"  US Ambassador Pete Hoekstra confirmed that the two victims, who are still being treated in hospital but whose condition is not said to be life-threatening, were American

 He said: "We wish them a speedy recovery and are working closely with the City of Amsterdam to provide assistance to them and their families

"  The identities of the victims have not been released.  Investigators in the Netherlands do not believe it was a targeted attack, and the two Americans were not known to the suspect

 German police searched the man's house at the request of their Dutch colleagues and seized several data carriers, the authorities said

 The suspect, who is being held in solitary confinement, will be brought before a judge on Monday to decide whether he should remain in custody

 The National Coordinator for Counter-terrorism and Security Policy said the national threat level in the Netherlands was unchanged at "substantial", or one notch below the highest

 The attack happened shortly before midday yesterday.

For more infomation >> Amsterdam stabbings was 'terror attack' after victims identified as US tourists - Duration: 2:03.

-------------------------------------------

McCain to be buried at US Naval Academy - Daily News - Duration: 3:31.

John McCain is being laid to rest at the US Naval Academy on Sunday after a five-day procession that served as a final call to arms for a nation he warned could lose its civility and sense of shared purpose

The private ceremony in Annapolis, Maryland, was as carefully planned as the rest of McCain's farewell tour, which began in Arizona after he died on August 25 from brain cancer and stretched to Washington

At a memorial on Saturday, speeches by his daughter Meghan and two former presidents – Republican George W Bush and Democrat Barack Obama – remembered McCain as a patriot who could bridge painful rivalries

But even as their remarks made clear their admiration for him, they represented a repudiation of President Donald Trump's brand of tough-talking, divisive politics

'So much of our politics, our public life, our public discourse can seem small and mean and petty, trafficking in bombast and insult and phoney controversies and manufactured outrage,' Obama said

Share this article Share 'It's a politics that pretends to be brave and tough but in fact is born in fear

John called on us to be bigger than that. He called on us to be better than that

'Bush, who called his 2000 rival for the Republican presidential nomination a friend, said: 'John's voice will always come as a whisper over our shoulder – we are better than this, America is better than this

'But it was Meghan McCain's emotional remarks that most bluntly rebuked Trump, who had mocked her father for getting captured in Vietnam

At the pulpit of the spectacular cathedral, with Trump's daughter Ivanka in the audience, McCain's daughter delivered a broadside against the uninvited president

'The America of John McCain,' she declared with a steely stare, 'has no need to be made great again because America was always great

'The audience of Washington's military, civilian and other leaders burst into applause

Trump spent Saturday tweeting and golfing in Virginia.McCain's family, including his 106-year-old mother Roberta, are escorting his remains to Annapolis

His choice of burial location was as deliberate as the other details of his procession

He picked the historic site overlooking the Severn River over the grandeur of Arlington National Cemetery, where his father and grandfather, both admirals, are buried

For more infomation >> McCain to be buried at US Naval Academy - Daily News - Duration: 3:31.

-------------------------------------------

Why are these Cryptic Messages Tiles Found All Across US? - Duration: 2:01.

Get familiar with Toynbee tiles.

These coded messages carrying rectangular tiles can be seen embedded in streets of two

dozen major cities in the United States and four South American cities.

There are hundreds of them, in populous places like Washington, D.C., New York City, Chicago,

New Jersey but no one really knows who lays them, what they mean or what purpose do they

serve.

First appeared in 19080s, most of the tiles contain some variation of the following inscription:

TOYNBEE IDEA IN MOViE `2001

RESURRECT DEAD ON PLANET JUPITER

while some of the more elaborate tiles also feature cryptic political statements or exhort

readers to create and install similar tiles of their own - which explains why they can

be found all across the United States.

Fan and followers, however, believe that the typical tiles are created by one person and

that they are being laid simply by being tossed out of a hole in the floorboard of a car - which

makes sense considering strong similarity in craftsmanship and writing style of the

tiles and also that no one has ever laid eyes on the tiler.

Investigators link the cryptic messages on the tiles to a 19th-century religious historian

and the "2001: A Space Odyssey" movie that came in 1968.

A tile found in Chile, mentions a street address in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania but when the

current occupants of the house were questioned, they said they knew nothing about it.

A propaganda, some secret plan or merely a joke - the Toynbee tiles continue to be a

Mystery.

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét