• The White House has reportedly sent a memo to the Pentagon authorizing US troops at the US-Mexico border to defend Customs and Border Protection personnel should the approaching migrant caravans turn violent.
• The Department of Homeland Security has reportedly assessed that the threat of violence posed to border personnel by the approaching caravans is "minimal," but the White House insists that there is a credible threat.
• There are presently 5,800 active-duty troops serving at the border as part of an operation that is estimated to cost roughly $72 million.
• The Department of Defense, according to Secretary of Defense James Mattis, has offered assurances that the military will stay "strictly within accordance of the law."

The White House has authorized US troops to take protective measures, including lethal force, to defend border personnel should the approaching migrant caravans turn violent, CNN first reported Tuesday.

Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. Michelle Baldanza confirmed to Business Insider that the Department of Defense received the memo, a "cabinet order" that reportedly permits"a show or use of force (including lethal force, where necessary), crowd control, temporary detention, and cursory search."

Such activities could potentially be in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids active-duty military personnel from engaging in law enforcement activities on American soil, although the Department of Defense insists that it will not violate the law.

Read more:The US military doesn't have any idea what the thousands of troops deployed to the border should do when the migrants show up

There are approximately 5,800 active-duty troops currently serving at the US-Mexico border — 2,800 in Texas, 1,500 in Arizona, and 1,500 in California. These troops, deployed in addition to the more than 2,000 National Guard personnel already present at the southern border, have been hardening ports of entry and securing key crossing points. Around 11 miles of concertina (razor) wire has been put down since their arrival, the Department of Defense revealed Monday.

The migrant caravans have clashed with authorities in other countries in incidents that led President Donald Trump to suggest that troops might open fire on migrants who throw rocks, a position from which he has since backed away. The odds that border personnel will encounter violence is reportedly low, but not nonexistent.

A leaked internal Department of Homeland Security document said the risk is "minimal,"according to The New York Times. "C.B.P. assesses the likelihood of violence directed against C.B.P. personnel along the border is minimal," the document reads.

White House chief of staff John Kelly, who signed the memo approving the new authorizations, argues that there is "credible evidence and intelligence" that the arrival of the migrants "may prompt incidents of violence and disorder."

The military's border mission, initially designated "Operation Faithful Patriot" but later referred to only as "border support," has drawn a significant amount of criticism since it began late last month, as critics have repeatedly called the deployment of thousands of active-duty troops to the border a political stunt, especially given the legal limitations on what they can do on US soil.

The Pentagon has pushed back against such accusations, with Secretary of Defense James Mattis saying "we don't do stunts in this department." The new protection authorizations would certainly expand the mission for deployed troops, giving them the ability to intervene in the event that CBP personnel came under attack.

As migrants begin pouring into border towns, the military has been at a loss about what the next step is for the active-duty troops at the border. With the memo sent to the Pentagon Tuesday, it appears the White House is offering to fill in the gaps.

Read more:Trump rushed more than 5,000 troops to the border to lay razor wire. Miles and miles of it.

Any protective measures taken by troops deployed at the border would be "proportional," officials told CNN. At the moment, Mattis is still reviewing the new authorities. "We’ll decide if [the authorities] are appropriate for the military," he told reporters Wednesday, according to Stars and Stripes. For the time being, the mission at the border has not changed.

In response to questions about the use of deadly force, Mattis further explained that DHS has not made a request for the use of lethal force, stressing that troops are not even carrying firearms.

"Relax. Don’t worry about it," he told reporters.

The Pentagon said Tuesday the cost of the deployment is $72 million, although that figure could change. Mattis said Wednesday he expects this figure to rise.

Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen expressed gratitude for the Department of Defense's support late Tuesday evening.

"[The Department of Homeland Security] and [Customs and Border Protection] will not permit unlawful entry into the US at or [between] our ports of entry [and] will continue to take all possible actions to stop such entry at our border," she wrote on Twitter, adding, "We appreciate [the Department of Defense] and [National Guard] for partnering [with] DHS on the border until the mission is complete."

The mission for active-duty troops is expected to run until December 15.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What serving in the military taught beauty YouTuber Jackie Aina

• The US Navy's 11 aircraft super carriers represent the envy of the world in terms of naval might and power projection, but their cult status and new threats from China and Russia could lose the US its next war. 
• Aircraft carriers have become an almost mystical symbol of US power, according to experts, and losing one would have a damaging psychological toll on the country. 
• An expert said the US president might not even want to send carriers into battle these days because losing one is a real possibility and it would significantly impact public support for fighting.
• But the carriers also deter war, because if an enemy fires on an aircraft carrier, they know the full might of the US will follow. 

The US Navy's 11 aircraft super carriers represent the envy of the world in terms of naval might and power projection, but the cult status they've achieved and the rise of Russia and China's missile fleets could lose the US its next war.

The myth of aircraft carrier goes that in times of crisis, the first question a president asks is: Where are the aircraft carriers?

The US Navy's Nimitz-class aircraft carriers tower above most buildings at 130 feet above the waterline. More than 1,000 feet in length displacing 100,000 tons of water, they transcend the idea of ships and become floating cities, or mobile airfields. 

Around 80 aircraft and 7,000 sailors, marines, and pilots live aboard the craft as its nuclear reactor steams it across the world's oceans at a remarkable clip. One of these carriers costs about $5 billion. The aircraft on board likely cost another billion or so.

The lives of the crew and the significance of the carrier to the US's understanding of its national power are priceless.

Mythical creatures

Jerry Hendrix, a former captain in the US Navy who worked with the chief of naval operation's executive panel on naval aviation and missile defense cautioned at a Heritage Foundation talk on Tuesday that the carriers may have become too mythological to fight. 

"Carriers have gone beyond mere naval platforms to become near mystical symbols of American national power," said Hendrix. "They are the symbol of the nation, its greatness, in the way they are perceived as asset of national prestige."

If the US purchased all of one carrier in a single year, it would eat 80% of the total shipbuilding budget, Hendrix said. 

But with the proliferation of carrier-killer missiles from China and Russia, meaning missiles purpose-built to sink carriers at sea from ranges far beyond the furthest missile from the furthest-flying jet off a carrier's deck, it's not immediately clear how these massive ships can bring their impressive power to bear.

Read more:America's most expensive warship ever built will undoubtedly change naval warfare

Carriers sail with a strike group of dedicated warships that can take on submarines, missiles, aircraft, and other surface combatants.

Bryan Clarke, former special assistant to the chief of naval operations who also spoke at Heritage, said that in a best-case scenario, a carrier strike group could down 450 incoming missiles. China could likely muster 600 missiles in an attack about 1,000 miles off their coast.

So short of some revolution in strike group armaments or tactics, China looks to have a solid chance at sinking the mythical aircraft carrier.

Too big to fail?

"Presidents may well be hesitant to introduce carriers inside dense portions of the enemy's threat environment," said Hendrix. "The military may make that advice based upon the mission they've been given," he continued, "but the president might not feel comfortable risking it."

The commander in chief of the US military owes his job to public opinion. Losing an aircraft carrier at sea would shock a nation that hasn't seen such destruction in a single battle since the Vietnam war. 

"For fear of loss of national prestige or even their political power," US presidents might not even want to use carriers, said Hendrix. "For the loss of an aircraft carrier will have a significant impact on the national conversation."

"We need to begin as a nation to have a conversation that prepares the American people for war," said Hendrix. "There is, unfortunately, the heavy potential of conflict coming, but the nation is not ready for heavy battle damage to its navy and specifically not to its aircraft carriers. We need to move these assets back in the realm of being weapons, and not being perceived as mystical unicorns."

Read more: Here's how China's new aircraft carrier stacks up to other world powers' carriers

But Bryan McGrath, founding managing director of The FerryBridge Group LLC, a naval consultancy, told Business Insider that the US's enemies would think twice before targeting a carrier, and that a wartime US Navy and people can and have risen to the task of fighting on through sunk carriers in the past. 

"The decision to go after an aircraft carrier, short of the deployment of nuclear weapons, is the decision that a foreign power would take with the most reticence," said McGrath. "The other guy knows that if that is their target, the wrath of god will come down on them."

For now, the expert community remains split around the utility of aircraft carriers going forward, but the US Navy continues to build them and set thousands to sea on them in a sure sign of confidence. 

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What serving in the military taught beauty YouTuber Jackie Aina

President Donald Trump just forced out Defense Secretary James Mattis two months early, after Mattis criticized Trump for betraying allies.

Over the past two years, the relationship between Trump and Mattis has deteriorated. Mattis was once one of Trump's most highly decorated cabinet members. But Mattis ultimately resigned after Trump decided to pull American troops out of Syria.

Upon Mattis's nomination in 2016, the Defense Secretary was highly regarded as a masterful leader and scholar of war. According to a number of those who served with him, he's a well-read history buff with a strategic mind, a senior man who is not above talking to even the most junior personnel, and a sometimes gruff, opinionated leader who isn't afraid to tell it like it is.

Business Insider spoke with a number of people who served with Mattis, and gathered up other anecdotes, to understand what the former four-star general is really like when he's in charge.

Here's what we learned.

Jacob Shamsian contributed to this report.

SEE ALSO: 19 unforgettable quotes from legendary Marine Gen. James 'Mad Dog' Mattis

Mattis has often been praised by senior leaders at the Pentagon as both a strategic thinker with an encyclopedic knowledge of history, and an incredible leader.

That reputation was earned over a 44-year career in the Marine Corps, where he rose to the highest rank of four-star general, eventually retiring as the top leader of US Central Command in 2013.

Before he took that job, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates praised him as one of the most formidable "warrior-scholars" of his generation. "General Mattis is one of our military’s foremost strategic thinkers and combat leaders," he said.

Source: Stripes

• The makers of China's new J-20 stealth fighter revealed the combat mission of the aircraft, and one of its key tasks would most likely see it getting shot down by decades-old US and European fighter jets.
• The J-20 has an impressive stealth design and good missiles that make it ideal for attacking some key targets that could degrade or even cripple the US military.
• But when it comes to old-fashioned air superiority, which China says the J-20 will take on, the US's F-15 and Europe's Typhoon could most likely beat it with ease.
• The US's top air-superiority fighter, the F-22, outclasses the J-20 by a wide margin in terms of taking control of the skies.

The makers of China's new J-20 stealth fighter revealed the combat mission of the aircraft, and one of its key tasks would most likely see it getting shot down by decades-old US and European fighter jets.

The J-20 has impressed observers with its advanced design and formidable weapons, but the jet's actual combat mission has remained somewhat of a mystery.

Read more: The real purpose behind China's mysterious J-20 stealth fighter jet

But Andreas Rupprecht, a German researcher focused on China's air power, recently posted an informational brochure from the Aviation Industry Corporation of China, the J-20's maker, laying out its mission.

It described the J-20 as a "heavy stealth" fighter that's "renowned" for its dominance in medium- and long-range air combat and first lists "seizing & maintaining air superiority" as its core missions.

It also lists interception and deep strike as missions for the J-20, falling roughly in line with Western analyses of the jet's capabilities.

But the J-20s purported air-superiority role is likely to raise more eyebrows.

Read more: China's most advanced stealth fighter may now be able to strike targets at greater distances than ever

J-20 loses the old-fashioned fight for the skies

Justin Bronk, an aerial-combat expert at the Royal United Services Institute, told Business Insider that for the J-20, fighting US or European jets for control of the skies represents a losing battle.

The J-20 is "certainly likely to be more capable as an air-superiority platform than anything else the People's Liberation Army Air Force"— China's air force's official name — "is currently operating," Bronk said.

"With a powerful radar and multiple internal air-to-air missiles as well as long range, it certainly shouldn't be dismissed as an air-superiority machine," he continued.

But just because it's China's best doesn't mean it can hold a candle to Europe's Typhoon fighter or even the US's F-15, which first flew in 1972.

"In terms of thrust to weight, maneuverability, and high-altitude performance, it is unlikely to match up to the US or European air-superiority fighters," Bronk said.

China's J-20 made a solid entry into the world of stealth fighter aircraft and became the only non-US stealth jet in the world. It's designed to significantly limit the ability of US radar to spot and track the large fighter, but the stealth mainly works on the front end, while the J-20 is flying straight toward the radar.

Tactically, experts have told Business Insider, the J-20 poses a serious threat in the interception and maritime-strike roles with its stealth design, but so far the jet has yet to deliver.

Read more: China appears to have rushed its J-20 stealth fighter into service with an 'embarrassing' flaw

China has suffered embarrassing setbacks in domestically building jet engines that would give the J-20 true fifth-generation performance on par with the F-35 or the F-22.

Bronk said China still appears years away from crossing this important threshold that would increase the range and performance of the jets.

"The engines are a significant limiting factor" in that they require inefficient use of afterburners and limit high-altitude performance, Bronk said.

What air superiority looks like

As it stands, the J-20 couldn't match the F-15 or the Eurofighter Typhoon, or even get close to an F-22, Bronk said.

"Against the F-15C and Typhoon, the J-20 has a lower radar cross section but worse performance, and its air-to-air missiles are unlikely to yet match the latest [US] series and certainly not the new European Meteor," Bronk said.

Bronk said that China had made great strides in air-to-air missile development and was testing at an "extremely high" pace, so the capability gap could close in a few short years.

But how does the J-20 stack up to the greatest air-superiority plane on the planet today, the F-22?

Read more: How China's stealthy new J-20 fighter jet compares to the US's F-22 and F-35

"The F-22 likely significantly outperforms the J-20 in almost every aspect of combat capability except for combat radius," Bronk said, referring to the farthest distance a loaded plane can travel without refueling.

Undoubtedly, the J-20 represents a significant leap in Chinese might and poses a serious and potentially critical threat to US air power in its ability to intercept and launch deep strikes.

But in the narrow role of air superiority — beating the best fighters the other side can offer to gain control of the sky — the US and Europe could most likely beat down China's J-20 without much trouble.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Everything we know about the mysterious SR-72 — Lockheed Martin's successor to the fastest plane ever

• President Donald Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton reportedly asked for the Pentagon to provide military options for striking Iran.
• The Pentagon regularly prepares all kinds of military options for all kinds of scenarios, many of which are not imminent at all, but this request reportedly rattled the war planners.
• Experts say the response to Bolton's request suggests he had something extreme planned.
• Bolton has long advocated war against Iran and even regime change, which likely would shock the Pentagon.

President Donald Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton reportedly asked the Pentagon to provide military options for striking Iran, which experts say should have been standard procedure, but somehow managed to shock defense officials.

Bolton, who has long advocated for the US to bomb Iran and even institute regime change against its theocratic rulers, requested options to strike Iran after Tehran-linked militants mortared, unsuccessfully, a US embassy in Baghdad, the Wall Street Journal first reported Sunday.

"It definitely rattled people," an official told the Journal. "People were shocked. It was mind-boggling how cavalier they were about hitting Iran."

But according to Ned Price, former special assistant to President Obama on the National Security Council, Bolton's response to an attack on the US represents standard operating procedure.

Read more:The Trump administration has been itching for a fight with Iran, but Mattis held it back. Now he's gone.

"It should come as no surprise that our military planners have devised war plans for a range of scenarios across the globe. Anything less would be derelict on their part," Price told Business Insider.

"What makes this different, however, is that the White House — in the form of Bolton — ordered the Pentagon to present these plans in the heat of the moment following an attack on US facilities," Price continued. "That’s qualitatively different than the Pentagon undertaking contingency planning as a matter of course."

So what could Bolton have requested from the Pentagon that came as such a shock?

Airstrikes.

According to Patrick Clawson, the director of research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Pentagon's shock likely came from an extreme request from Bolton: Airstrikes. 

Clawson said it was natural for the US to look to retaliate against Iran after militants under its command attacked US personnel, but that the US had plenty of options, even military options, short of alarming.

For example, the US could have ordered the navy to intercept Iranian boats at sea that they suspect of arming Houthi rebels in Yemen as a measured military response that likely wouldn't shock many in the Pentagon, said Clawson. 

Read more:Trump's national security adviser John Bolton has advocated bombing North Korea — and he may be sabotaging talks

But the rattled response by Pentagon officials indicates that Bolton likely saw the attack in Baghdad as the start of a wider campaign against US citizens in the Middle East, and that Bolton sought a heavy-handed response.

"Airstrikes are a stupid idea," said Clawson. If Bolton requested options for airstrikes from the Pentagon, "somebody should come back and say that's a really dumb idea," he continued. 

While the US has ample air power and could easily hit targets in Iran, Clawson said "the Iranians would be able to play that well with their domestic audiences and the international audiences, saying the Americans are warmongerers and erratic."

Furthermore, Iran has denied directing the strike in Baghdad, though the US reportedly assesses they did indeed order attacks on the US.

Iran therefore has "plausible deniability" in the attacks, whereas airstrikes with US military jets do not afford that same deniability to the US, and would mark a large escalation, said Clawson. 

Read more: Trump has his cake and eats it too with sanctions tanking Iran's economy and oil staying low

"It’s the job of the Pentagon to have off-the-shelf options ready, but it’s the role of those in charge of policy — including the national security advisor — to ensure we employ force prudently and only as a last resort," said Price. 

The Trump administration has actually enjoyed some success in punishing Iran for its regional behavior and rallying support from Europe, despite its controversial withdrawal from the Iran deal.

But a direct air strike on Iran in response to a failed mortar attack that injured no one could easily trigger an all-out war across the region, and easily send chills down spines among Pentagon warplanners. 

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The US Air Force refuels combat jets in midair with a 'flying boom system' — watch it in action

• Russia has some of its best air defenses in Syria, and has boasted they can shoot down US stealth fighters, but Israel routinely defeats these systems with non-stealthy F-16s.
• Syria managed to shoot down one Israeli F-16, but also shot down a surveillance plane that belonged to its ally, Russia, on accident.
• There's good evidence to suggest that Israel's air force is really good at defeating Syria's air defenses and that Syria hasn't figured out how to defend itself yet.
• Russia has taken to making excuses for their Syrian allies as their systems, which they hope to export, are routinely defeated by Israeli jets. 

Russia deployed some of its best air defenses to Syria to keep US missiles and jets at bay as the US military's immense air and naval power fought ISIS in close proximity — but the supposedly airtight defenses are routinely defeated by Israel.

In February 2017, a Syrian-manned Russian-made S-200 missile defense system shot down an Israel F-16 returning from a massive raid targeting Iranian forces in Syria. 

In response, Israel launched another raid that it claimed took out half of Syria’s air defenses, of which older Russian systems comprised the majority. 

Read more:Israel's F-35s reportedly saw combat in a raging Syrian air war that smashed Russian defenses

In April, Syria got rocked by a missile attack that appeared to ignite a munitions depot hard enough to register as a 2.6 magnitude earthquake and is believed to have killed dozens of Iranians. 

In May, Israel released video of one of its bombs destroying a Russian air defense system, Russian media offered excuses as to why it failed to stop the incoming missile.

Israel rarely confirms individual airstrikes, and either confirmed or didn't deny these attacks. 

In September, another Israeli raid on Iranian weapons stockpiles in Syria saw a Russian Il-20 surveillance and control plane downed by Russian-made air defenses fired off in error by Syrian air defense units, killing 15. 

Read more:Russia's new missile defenses in Syria look likely to set off a shooting war against Israel

Russia accused Israel of purposefully flying under the Il-20 to confuse the Syrian air defenses into shooting down a friendly plane and quickly shipped the more advanced S-300 missile defenses to Syrian hands.

Russia thinks highly of its S-300 and other missile defenses, and has publicly mocked the US over its stealth jets, implying it could shoot them down. At the time, Russia said it would shut down satellite navigation in the region and that it expected its new defenses would preclude further Israeli attacks. So far, they were wrong. 

Somehow Israel has continued to hit targets in Syria at will with F-16s, non-stealthy fourth-generation fighter-bombers.

On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu acknowledged that his country’s air force had carried out hundreds of raids in Syria, with a recent one hitting Iranian weapons near Damascus International Airport.

Russia initially deployed air defenses to Syria to keep powerful countries like the US from attacking Syrian President Bashar Assad, and later to protect its own air force fighters stationed there. 

The US has long opposed Assad, as he violently shut down peaceful protesters in 2011 and has stood accused of torture, war crimes, and using chemical weapons against civilians during the country’s maddening 7-year-long civil war.

But the US has attacked Syria twice with cruise missiles, and Syria has never proven a single missile intercept. 

According to experts, there’s two likely reasons why Syria’s Russian-made air defenses can’t get the job done: 1. Israel is good at beating Syrian air defenses. 2. Syria is bad at beating Israeli jets. 

Israel is good at this

"One of the Israeli hallmarks when they do these sort of fairly bold strikes within the coverage of the Syrian air defenses is heavy electronic warfare and jamming,” Justin Bronk, an aerial combat expert at the Royal United Services Institute told Business Insider.

Bronk said that Israel, a close US ally that takes part in major training events in the US, has become adept at knocking over Syrian air defenses.

Israel sees Iranian arms shipments through Syria as an existential threat. Although Israel has relationships to maintain with the US and Russia — both key players in the Syrian quagmire — Netanyahu has said resolutely that Israel will stop at nothing to beat back Iran. 

In more than 100 raids admitted by Netanyahu, Israel has only lost a single aircraft. Bronk attributes this to  "many, many tricks developed over decades" for the suppression of enemy air defenses developed by Israel.

Retired US Marine Corps Lt. Col. David Berke, a former F-35, F-22, and F-18 pilot, told Business Insider that Israel finds "innovative, creative, and aggressive ways to maximize the capability of every weapons systems they've ever used."

Syria is bad at this

Syria has demonstrably failed on many occasions to stop air attacks on its territory. While Russia’s air defenses do give US military planners serious pause, Syria’s have yet to prove themselves.

With US Tomahawk cruise missile strikes in consecutive Aprils in 2017 and 2018, Syria claimed both times to have blocked a significant portion of the attack, but never provided any evidence of an intercept. 

Additionally, photos from the second US Tomahawk strike on Syria show Syrian air defenses firing interceptor missiles on ballistic trajectories.

This strongly indicates that the Syrians simply fired blindly into the night sky, unable to detect a thing as US missiles rocked targets across the countryside.

Read more:Photos of the Syria strike appear to show missile interceptors firing blindly, failing to stop missile attack

Finally, Syria shooting down a friendly Russian plane evidences a lack of coordination or situational awareness, whether due to old hardware, Israeli electronic warfare, or simply poor execution. 

Israel’s most recent attacks in Syria took place smack in the middle of Damascus, Russian and Syrian air defenses make for some of the world's most challenging airspace. 

That Israel can still fight in Syria among top Russian air defenses shows either that their force has its tactics down pat, that Syria can’t field decent air defense regimes, or that Russia has turned a blind eye to Israel pounding on Iranian advances in the region. 

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The US Air Force refuels combat jets in midair with a 'flying boom system' — watch it in action

• In 2015 the F-35 lost repeatedly in mock dogfights with F-16s because it couldn't turn well enough, a test pilot wrote in an official report.
• But new videos leaked from the US Air Force's F-35 demo or stunt flying team show the jet making head-spinning turns that older jets could never hit. 
• A former F-35 squadron commander told Business Insider that the jet has become an excellent dogfighter, and the new moves show it. 

Early in its combat testing, a test pilot's damning report leaked to the press and exposed the world's most expensive weapons system, the F-35, as a bad dogfighter that the F-16 routinely trounced in mock battles. 

But new videos leaked from the US Air Force's F-35 demo or stunt flying team show the jet making head-spinning turns that older jets could never hit. 

In 2015, the test pilot's write up of the jet's combat performance obliterated the idea of F-35 as a capable dogfighter due to a glaring flaw: Weak maneuverability.

"Overall, the most noticeable characteristic of the F-35A in a visual engagement was its lack of energy maneuverability," the pilot wrote. 

Read more:Here's why the F-35 once lost to F-16s, and how it made a stunning comeback

"The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage in a turning fight and operators would quickly learn it isn't an ideal regime... Though the aircraft has proven it is capable of high AOA [angle of attack] flight, it wasn't effective for killing or surviving attacks primarily due to a lack of energy maneuverability," he continued.

Furthermore, according to the pilot, there was basically nothing the F-35 could do to escape getting killed by the F-16's gun. Any move he tried to escape the F-35's cannon read as "predictable" and saw the pilot taking a loss.

But the F-35 program and its role in dogfights hadn't been as well figured out back then.

Since then, the F-35 has mopped up in simulated dogfights with a 15-1 kill ratio. According to retired Lt. Col. David Berke, who commanded a squadron of F-35s and flew an F-22 — the US's most agile, best dogfighter — the jet has undergone somewhat of a revolution. 

New moves, new rules

In the video, the F-35 pilot takes the plane inverted, hits a tight loop, and appears to pause in mid-air as he enters a flat spin that makes his hundred-million-dollar jet appear like a leaf floating down towards earth. (Really better to watch than read about it.)

The flat spin move is often used by F-22 and Russian fighter pilots to show off the intense ability of their planes to sling the nose around in any direction they wish. 

According to Berke, this F-35 stunt "demonstrates what the pilots and the people around the aircraft have always known: It's vastly superior to almost anything out there," in terms of agility. 

Furthermore, according to Berke, an F-16 could not hit the move shown in the demo team's video. 

Read more:A new generation of F-35 pilots are coming, and they'll solve the fighter's biggest problem

Berke and others close to the F-35 program have described to Business Insider a kind of breakthrough in the maneuvering of the F-35 throughout its development. 

Berke said the video proves that the F-35 is a "highly maneuverable, highly effective dogfighting platform," but even still, he wouldn't use that exact maneuver in a real dogfight. 

The flat spin is "not an effective dogfighting maneuver, and in some cases, you would avoid doing that."

"If me and you were dogfighting and we’re 2 miles away, and I had a wingman 5 miles away, you’d be super slow and predictable and easy for him to find," due to executing the move, said Berke. 

But despite the F-35's impressive moves and ability to win dogfights, Berke said he'd stay on mission and try to score kills that take better advantage of the jet's stealth.

Read more:Russian fighter pilot says he beat an F-22 in a mock dogfight and locked onto it, but the Pentagon threw cold water on the claims

"I want to avoid getting into a dogfight, but if I had to I’m going to be able to outmaneuver most other aircraft," he said.

After all, the F-35's makers never intended it as a straight World War II-era Red Baron killer, but a rethink of aerial combat as a whole. 

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Inside the Coast Guard's 8-week boot camp where recruits go through extreme physical tests and brutal 'smoke sessions'

• Netflix announced on Wednesday a new show about President Donald Trump's new branch of the US military, the Space Force, from Steve Carell and Greg Daniels, the main comedic forces behind "The Office." 
• The show will follow "the story of the men and women who have to figure" out Trump's quixotic demand for a military branch dedicated to outer space.
• Experts who spoke to Business Insider called Trump's move to create a new military branch dedicated to space premature. 

Netflix announced on Wednesday a new show about President Donald Trump's new branch of the US military, the Space Force, from Steve Carell and Greg Daniels, the main comedic forces behind "The Office." 

"On June 18, 2018 the federal government announced the creation of a 6th major division of the United States armed forces," a teaser for the new series read. 

"The goal of the new branch is 'to defend satellites from attack' and 'perform other space-related tasks' or something," it continues. "This is the story of the men and women who have to figure it out."

Trump's Space Force, which the Air Force explicitly opposed for years before his presidency, met with resistance from experts and the Pentagon.

However, most experts agree that the US does need to protect its space assets such as satellites, but previous administrations had been satisfied with the Air Force's Space Command.

Read more:Trump's Space Force is about beating China, as Beijing is talking as if it already owns space

Experts who spoke to Business Insider called Trump's move to create a new military branch dedicated to space premature, and Mark Kelley, a former US astronaut, called it "dumb."

So far, Space Command does not have an independent headquarters or command structure. 

"The Office" remains one of the most popular shows on Netflix and is credited with bringing the mockumentary storytelling format to the US. 

Watch the teaser here:

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Inside the Coast Guard's 8-week boot camp where recruits go through extreme physical tests and brutal 'smoke sessions'

• President Donald Trump rolled out his vision for the future of nuclear war fighting on Thursday with the Missile Defense Review, and the plan reads like a guide to taking down North Korean missile launches.
• Some of the very same ideas that came up for negating a North Korean missile attack during the height of the nuclear crisis in 2017 came up in the review.
• Trump has directed the US to research using the F-35 and possibly a laser drone to take out missile launches which only make sense over North Korea, which has relatively few nuclear missiles.
• Even as Trump goes ahead trying to find an uneasy peace with Pyongyang, the missile defense review clearly looks to upset the deterrence relationship and balance between the two nuclear powers. 

President Donald Trump rolled out his vision for the future of nuclear war fighting on Thursday with the Missile Defense Review, and the plan reads like a guide to taking down North Korean missile launches.

The review, originally slotted to come out in May 2018, may have been postponed to avoid spooking North Korea, whose leader Kim Jong Un met with Trump the following month, Defense News reported. 

North Korea regularly reacts harshly to any US military move that could threaten it, and has frequently threatened to strike the US with nuclear weapons in the past. 

Read more:Trump just reimagined how the US will fight nuclear wars — but it's a losing battle with Russia

Throughout 2017, the US and North Korea traded nuclear threats that saw the world dragged to the brink of unimaginable bloodshed and destruction. 

During that time, military planners, Congress, and the president all considered the unimaginable: Going to war with North Korea. 

'All options' still on the table

North Korea, a serial human rights violator and nuclear proliferator, presents itself as an easy target for US intervention even for the most dovish commander in chief, but there's one small problem. 

North Korea's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, all of which can be affixed to ballistic missiles, pose a tremendous threat to South Korea, a staunch US ally, and increasingly, the US mainland itself. 

Read more:Here's why the US would have to be insane to attack North Korea

North Korea discussed lobbing missiles at the US military in Guam and detonating a nuclear warhead above the Pacific ocean. Former Pentagon and Obama administration officials say this easily could have led to an all-out war.

During that period, Congress discussed the F-35 stealth fighter jet as a possible ICBM killer. 

"Very simple — what we're trying to do is shoot [air-to-air missiles] off F-35s in the first 300 seconds it takes for the missile to go up in the air," Rep. Duncan Hunter said during a November 2017 meeting on Capitol Hill with the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, according to Inside Defense.

Read more:The Missile Defense Agency wants a laser-equipped drone that would be a silver bullet for stopping North Korea

Additionally, the US Missile Defense Agency in June 2017 put out a request for proposals to build a high-altitude long-endurance unmanned aircraft capable of flying higher than 63,000 feet and carrying a laser to shoot down ballistic missiles as they arc upwards towards the sky.

Both of these systems, a laser drone and an F-35 ICBM killer came up in Trump's new missile defense review. North Korea was mentioned 79 times in the review, the same number of times as Russia, though Moscow likely has 100 times as many nuclear warheads as Pyongyang. 

But Russia, the world's largest country by far, has a vast airspace no drone or F-35 could patrol. Only North Korea, a small country, makes any sense for these systems. 

Even defense is offensive

While the Missile Defense Review in theory discusses only defensive measures against missile attacks, the military does not only defend, it also goes on offense.

Trump has directed the US to research using the F-35 and possibly a laser drone to take out missile launches which only make sense over North Korea.

If the US could significantly limit missile retaliation from North Korea it would mitigate the downside of taking out Kim, one of the top threats to US national security. 

On Friday, a North Korean nuclear negotiator will head to Washington to talk denuclearization with the White House.

But even as Trump goes ahead trying to find an uneasy peace with Pyongyang, the missile defense review clearly looks to give the US capabilites certain to upset the deterrence relationship and balance between the two nuclear powers. 

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un is 35 — here's how he became one of the world's scariest dictators

• The US will stop complying with a landmark nuclear pact with Russia as soon as this weekend after last-ditch talks with Moscow to save it fell flat.
• The treaty bans the US and Russia from developing land-launched nuclear-capable cruise missiles with a range between 300 and 3,400 miles.
• The US has long accused Russia of having a missile that violates these criteria, and Russia has always denied it.
• The US may now create a new class of nuclear missiles to respond to Russia.
• The INF is the only treaty that ever eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons and saw Europe rapidly denuclearize as a result. 

BEIJING/MOSCOW (Reuters) - The United States will stop complying with a landmark nuclear pact with Russia as soon as this weekend after last-ditch talks with Moscow to save it fell flat, a senior U.S. arms control official said on Thursday.

Washington has long accused Russia of flouting the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), alleging that a new Russian missile, the Novator 9M729, called the SSC-8 by NATO, violates the pact, which bans either side from stationing short- and intermediate-range, land-based missiles in Europe.

Russia denies that, saying the missile’s range puts it outside the treaty, and has accused the United States of inventing a false pretext to exit a treaty Washington wants to leave anyway so as to develop new missiles. It has also rejected a U.S. demand to destroy the new missile.

U.S. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Andrea Thompson on Thursday held last-ditch talks with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov in Beijing ahead of the expiration of a U.S. 60-day deadline for Moscow to come back into compliance with the treaty.

Thompson and Ryabkov, who met on the sidelines of a P5 meeting of nuclear powers, said afterwards that the two countries had failed to bridge their differences.

In an interview, Thompson said she expected Washington to now stop complying with the treaty as soon as this weekend, a move she said would allow the U.S. military to immediately begin developing its own longer-range missiles if it chose to do so, raising the prospect they could be deployed in Europe.

"We’ll be able to do that (suspend our treaty obligations) on Feb. 2," Thompson told Reuters. "We’ll have an announcement made, follow all the steps that need to be taken on the treaty to suspend our obligations with the intent to withdraw.”

The formal withdrawal process, once announced, takes six months. Stopping compliance with the treaty would untie the U.S. military's hands, she said.

"We are then also able to conduct the R&D and work on the systems we haven’t been able to use because we’ve been in compliance with the treaty," said Thompson. "Come February 2, this weekend, if DoD (the U.S. Department of Defense) chooses to do that, they’ll be able to do that.”

Washington remained open to further talks with Moscow about the treaty regardless, she added.

Ryabkov said Moscow would continue working to try to reach agreement despite the failure of the talks, but accused Washington of ignoring Russian complaints about U.S. missiles and of adopting what he called a destructive position.

"The United States imposed a 60-day period during which we had to fulfill their ultimatum," the Sputnik news agency cited Ryabkov as saying after talks with Thompson.

"I conclude that the United States was not expecting any decision and all this was a game made to cover their domestic decision to withdraw from the INF Treaty."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Inside the Coast Guard's 8-week boot camp where recruits go through extreme physical tests and brutal 'smoke sessions'

• The US Navy has shed light on a previously secret project to protect aircraft carriers from the grave and widespread threat of torpedoes, and it's been a massive failure.
• The Navy abandoned a program to detect and kill incoming torpedoes in the water after it failed to make progress in testing, leaving its most powerful ships highly vulnerable.
• The anti-torpedo systems in place will now be removed at a time when US carriers are losing simulated battles to even older, diesel-powered electric submarines, and China's military is openly discussing sinking carriers to defeat the US.
• The US spent $760 million on the system to save US ships, and now it looks like even old North Korean subs could have a chance at a kill shot on the US's carrier fleet.

The US Navy has shed light on a previously highly classified project meant to protect aircraft carriers from the grave and widespread threat of torpedoes, and it's been a massive failure.

Virtually every navy the US might find itself at war against can field torpedoes, or underwater self-propelled bombs that have been sinking warships for more than 100 years.

US Navy aircraft carriers represent technological marvels, as they're floating airports powered by nuclear reactors. But after years of secretive tests, the US has given up on a program to protect the ships against torpedoes.

The US Navy has canceled its anti-torpedo torpedo-defense system and will remove the systems from the five aircraft carriers that have them installed, the Pentagon’s Office of the Director of Test and Evaluation said in a report on Tuesday.

Read more: China sets the stage for a 'bloody nose' attack on US aircraft carriers, but it would backfire horribly

"In September 2018, the Navy suspended its efforts to develop the [surface ship torpedo defense] system. The Navy plans to restore all carriers to their normal configurations during maintenance availabilities" over the next four years, the report said.

Essentially, the report said that over five years the program made some progress in finding and knocking down incoming torpedoes, but not enough. Data on the reliability of the systems remains either too thin or nonexistent.

This leaves the US Navy's surface ships with almost no defense against a submarine's primary anti-surface weapon at a time when the service says that Russia's and China's submarine fleets have rapidly grown to pose a major threat to US ships.

The US ignored the threat of torpedoes, and now anyone with half a navy has a shot

At the end of the Cold War, the US turned away from anti-submarine warfare toward a fight against surface ships. But now, Russia, China, and Iran reportedly have supercavitating torpedoes, or torpedoes that form a bubble of air around themselves as they jet through the water at hundreds of miles per hour.

Read more: The US Navy's carriers have a gaping hole in their defenses against a growing threat, and drones may soon fill it

The new class of speedy torpedoes can't be guided, but can fire straight toward US Navy carriers that have little chance of detecting them.

Torpedoes don't directly collide with a ship, but rather use an explosion to create an air bubble under the ship to bend or break the keel, sinking the ship.

Other Russian torpedoes have a range of 12 miles and can zigzag to beat countermeasures when closing in on a ship.

In a combat exercise off the coast of Florida in 2015, a small French nuclear submarine, the Saphir, snuck through multiple rings of carrier-strike-group defenses and scored a simulated kill on the USS Theodore Roosevelt and half its escort ships, Reuters reported. Other US naval exercises have seen even old-fashioned, diesel-electric submarines sinking carriers.

Even unsophisticated foes such as North Korea and Iran can field diesel-electric submarines and hide them in the noisy littoral waters along key US Navy transit routes.

The US has spent $760 million on the failed system, The Drive reported.

The US Navy can deploy "nixies" or noise-making decoys that the ship drags behind it to attract torpedoes, but it must detect the incoming torpedoes first.

A US Navy carrier at 30 knots runs just 10 knots slower than a standard torpedo, but with a flight deck full of aircraft and personnel, pulling tight turns to dodge an incoming torpedo presents problems of its own.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un is 35 — here's how he became one of the world's scariest dictators

• The US Air Force will reportedly ask for eight new Boeing F-15 fighter jets in its next budget request, and Republican senators are already worried this could mean bad things for the US's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
• Trump has long been skeptical of F-35s, and the Air Force is now looking to buy new F-15s that outperform the F-35 in some metrics to bolster their fleet.
• Republican senators urged Trump to keep buying only F-35s, but there's some evidence that the F-15s could offer the US an edge in combat.
• The Air Force chief of staff said not to think of the F-15s buy as a trade-off against F-35s, but as a complement to them.

The US Air Force will reportedly ask for eight new Boeing F-15 fighter jets in its next budget request, and Republican senators are already worried this could mean bad things for the US's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

President Donald Trump has long come across as skeptical of the F-35 and its promises to fool enemy radar and revolutionize aerial combat.

Boeing has responded by offering up an improved crop of old-school dogfighter jets, and the Air Force is interested, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday.

Republican Sens. John Cornyn, Ted Cruz, Susan Collins, Marco Rubio, and Lisa Murkowski sent a letter to Trump warning against buying new F-15s from Boeing, saying it risked US national security by taking away from F-35 buys.

Before even taking office, Trump tweeted that the "tremendous cost" of the F-35, the most expensive weapons program in history, had caused him to look at Boeing.

Now, Boeing has offered up an F-15X, or a 21st-century restart of the Cold War-era fighter jet. Boeing's F-15 was one of the fastest jets ever built and ruled the skies as the US's top air-superiority fighter for decades until the F-22 came online.

Today, Boeing promises a new F-15 with better computers and avionics, and an incredible capacity for 12 air-to-air missiles. By contrast, the F-35 has a shorter range and can carry a maximum of only four air-to-air missiles in a stealth configuration.

Read more: F-35s train in air-combat 'beast mode' in the Pacific after China deploys 'carrier-killer' missiles

But the senators, citing top US Air Force brass, said the US needs F-35s and can't risk buying older, less-survivable jets.

F-35s or bust?

"We are extremely concerned that, over the last few years, the DoD has underfunded the F-35 Program and relied on Congress to fund increases in production, sustainment, and modernization. In order to meet the overmatch and lethality goals laid out in the National Security Strategy, the DoD needs to make these investments in the F-35 to affordably deliver and operate this fifth-generation fighter fleet. The F-35 is the most affordable, lethal, and survivable air dominance fighter, and now is the time to double down on the program,"the senators wrote.

Read more: Trump's new Pentagon chief reportedly hates the F-35 — here's what the US could have made instead

Essentially, the senators demanded Trump fully fund the F-35 to get Lockheed Martin, the jet's builder and Boeing's chief rival, to step up production to the full rate, at which point the F-35 could cost as little as $80 million apiece.

"New versions of old F-15s designed in the 1970s-1980s cannot survive against the newest Russian and Chinese fifth-generation fighter and surface to air missile threats, not to mention rapidly developing future threats," the lawmakers wrote.

Trump has been clear that the US needs to build up its military to counter near-peer threats such as China and Russia, rather than old foes such as Middle Eastern insurgents, which the US military prefers to fight with stealth aircraft.

As a non-stealth jet, the F-15 doesn't fit the working hypothesis of how to best kick down Moscow's or Beijing's door, but it may well serve a purpose in a great power war.

F-15s to the rescue?

The senators cited a price of $100 million per new F-15, but that figure may be well off. The Drive reported that the price of the F-15, which Boeing still produces for international customers, could drop to below any cost ever projected for the F-15.

Also, the senators seem out of touch with what Air Force chief of staff Gen. David Goldfein told Defense News about the new F-15s.

Read more: Watch an F-35 up close training in 'beast mode' for air support and all out war

"They complement each other," he said of the two jets. "They each make each other better."

"An F-15 will never be an F-35. Never. But I need capacity," he continued.

Additionally, the new F-15s, with their tremendous capacity to carry bombs, may one day work as bomb trucks for the F-35, which can generate and transmit targeting data to other jets without ruining its stealth shape by opening the bomb bays.

SEE ALSO: US soldiers and Marines want to punch holes in ships, and that's bad news for China

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un is 35 — here's how he became one of the world's scariest dictators

• Russian media on Sunday made a shocking threat by saying the country's military could vaporize various locations in the US with new missiles.
• But Russia's list included some strange choices, like military bases that had been closed for decades. 
• The likely targets of a Russian nuclear strike would be counterintuitive, and places like New York and Los Angeles may be spared for more high-value targets in North Dakota or Montana.

Russian state media on Sunday made a shocking threat, even by its own extreme standards, that detailed how Moscow would annihilate US cities and areas after a nuclear treaty collapsed and put the Cold War rivals back in targeting mode. 

Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened a new Cuban Missile Crisis with deployments near the US's borders and to aim missiles at the cities that command armed forces — but Russia's media took it a step further by naming their new targets.

Hyping up a new hypersonic nuclear-capable missile, Russian state TV on Sunday evening said the Pentagon, Camp David, Jim Creek Naval Radio Station in Washington, Fort Ritchie in Maryland, and McClellan Air Force Base in California, would be targets, according to Reuters.

But the latter two have been closed for about two decades, making them strange choices for targets. 

With most everything from the Russia or its heavily censored media, it's best to take its claims with a grain of salt. Instead of taking Russia's word for it when it comes to nuclear targets, Business Insider got an expert opinion on where Moscow would need to strike.

Read more: Russian state media says Putin's hypersonic missiles would instantly vaporize these 5 US targets

Since the Cold War, the US and Russia have drawn up plans on how to best wage nuclear war against each other; and while large population centers with huge cultural impact may seem like obvious choices, a smarter nuclear attack would focus on countering the enemy's nuclear forces.

So although people in New York City or Los Angeles may see themselves as being in the center of the world, in terms of nuclear-target priorities, they're not as important as states like North Dakota or Montana.

According to Stephen Schwartz, the author of "Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of US Nuclear Weapons Since 1940," as the Cold War progressed and improvements in nuclear weapons and intelligence-collection technologies enabled greater precision in where those weapons were aimed, the emphasis in targeting shifted from cities to nuclear stockpiles and nuclear war-related infrastructure.

This map shows the essential points Russia would have to attack to wipe out the US's nuclear forces, according to Schwartz:

This map represents targets for an all-out attack on the US's fixed nuclear infrastructure, weapons, and command-and-control centers, but even a massive strike like this wouldn't guarantee anything.

"It's exceedingly unlikely that such an attack would be fully successful," Schwartz told Business Insider. "There's an enormous amount of variables in pulling off an attack like this flawlessly, and it would have to be flawless. If even a handful of weapons escape, the stuff you missed will be coming back at you."

Even if every single US intercontinental ballistic missile silo, stockpiled nuclear weapon, and nuclear-capable bomber were flattened, US nuclear submarines could — and would — retaliate.

According to Schwartz, at any given time, the US has four to five nuclear-armed submarines "on hard alert, in their patrol areas, awaiting orders for launch."

Even high-ranking officials in the US military don't know where the silent submarines are, and there's no way Russia could chase them all down before they fired back, which Schwartz said could be done in as little as 5 to 15 minutes.

But a strike on a relatively sparsely populated area could still lead to death and destruction across the US, depending on how the wind blew. That's because of fallout.

The US has strategically positioned the bulk of its nuclear forces, which double as nuclear targets, far from population centers. But if you happen to live next to an ICBM silo, fear not.

There's a "0.0% chance" that Russia could hope to survive an act of nuclear aggression against the US, according to Schwartz. So while we all live under a nuclear "sword of Damocles," Schwartz added, people in big cities like New York and Los Angeles most likely shouldn't worry about being struck by a nuclear weapon.

SEE ALSO: Putin describes Russian 'doomsday' nuclear weapon in a wild speech to the nation

DON'T MISS: The US shot down an ICBM, but if North Korea attacks it won't be that easy

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Watch how the US would shoot down an incoming ICBM in its tracks

• India on Tuesday launched airstrikes across its border with Pakistan in a military escalation after a terror attack in Kashmir left 40 Indian troops dead.
• Pakistan immediately convened a meeting of its nuclear commanders and issued a thinly veiled nuclear threat to India. 
• The airstrike from India involved nuclear-capable aircraft and, according to India, killed up to 300 militants. But Pakistan said the Indian jets were chased off and killed no one. 
• With China closely backing Pakistan and the US supporting India, Pakistan and India's rivalry has long been seen as a potential flash point for a global nuclear conflict.
• Both sides appear to be out for blood as gun fighting cracks off on the border and Indians around the country celebrate what they see as vengeance for the terror attack. 

India on Tuesday launched airstrikes across its border with Pakistan in a military escalation after a terror attack in Kashmir left 40 Indian troops dead, and Pakistan immediately convened a meeting of its nuclear commanders. 

Gun fighting on the ground broke out along India and Pakistan's de facto border after what Vipin Narang, an MIT professor and an expert on the two country's conventional and nuclear forces, called "India’s most significant airstrike against Pak in half a century."

The strikes happened after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi unleashed the military to respond however it saw fit after the terror attack, which India blames on Islamic militants based in Pakistan.

India and Pakistan, which have been engaged in a bitter rivalry for decades, have fought three wars over the disputed territory, and analysts are closely watching the crisis for clues about whether it could escalate from airstrikes to a heightened nuclear posture.

Pakistan denies any involvement in the terror attack but swiftly "took control" of the Jaish-e-Mohammed militant camp in question.

Read more: Pakistan readies military, hospitals for war with its nuclear rival India after Pulwama terror attack

India said its airstrikes killed as many as 300 Muslim separatist militants, but it is unclear whether the attack had any effect. Pakistan said its air force scrambled fighter jets and chased India off, forcing the jets to hastily drop their bombs in an unpopulated area, and Pakistan's prime minister called India's claims "fictitious."

For the mission, India flew its Mirage 2000 jets, which it uses as part of its nuclear deterrence. The jets dropped more than 2,000 pounds of laser-guided bombs, according to News18.com. As a branch of India's nuclear forces, the Mirage 2000 fleet has some of the most ready aircraft and pilots, India Today reported. 

The strike took place about 30 miles deep into Pakistan's territory in a town called Balakot, Indian Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale said at a press conference. 

"The existence of such training facilities, capable of training hundreds of jihadis, could not have functioned without the knowledge of the Pakistani authorities," Gokhale said. The US has similarly accused Pakistan of harboring terrorists and backed India's right to self-defense after the terror attack. 

Read more: India unleashes its military on Pakistan after a terror attack stoked the feud between the nuclear rivals

Maj. Gen. Asif Ghafoor, the spokesperson for Pakistan's military, said Pakistan successfully scrambled jets and scared off the incoming Indian Mirage 2000s. He also tweeted pictures of craters and parts of what could be Indian bombs.

"Payload of hastily escaping Indian aircrafts fell in open,"Ghafoor said of the images. It's unclear if India hit their targets, actually killed anyone, or simply dropped fuel tanks upon leaving Pakistan.

India's airstrikes hit relatively close to Pakistan's prominent military academies and the country's capital, Islamabad, raising concern among the military that it's under the threat of further Indian strikes. 

Pakistan's nuclear threat

At a press conference in response to the airstrikes, Ghafoor issued a veiled nuclear threat to India. 

"We will surprise you. Wait for that surprise. I said that our response will be different. The response will come differently," Ghafoor said at a press conference.

Ghafoor added that Pakistan had called a meeting of its National Command Authority, which controls the country's nuclear arsenal. 

"You all know what that means," Ghafoor said of the nuclear commanders' meeting in a press conference he posted to Twitter. 

Read more: We ranked the world's nuclear arsenals — here's why China's came out on top

But India has nuclear weapons and means to deliver them, too. Additionally, both countries maintain large conventional militaries that have become increasingly hostile in their rhetoric toward each other. 

Best case scenario? Conventional skirmishes

India and Pakistan have fought three wars over the border and have nuclearized to counter each other's forces. With China closely backing Pakistan and the US supporting India, Pakistan and India's rivalry has long been seen as a potential flash point for a global nuclear conflict.

Reuters' Idrees Ali reported after the strikes that gunfights had broken out along Pakistan and India's border. The two countries have fought three wars over the disputed region of Kashmir, which both countries claim but administer only in part. 

Both India and Pakistan now appear to be out for blood after the fighting. Reuters reported that all around India people were celebrating, and Modi praised the military as "heroes."

Meanwhile, Pakistan's denial that the airstrikes hit anything may give them some deniability and wiggle room to not respond with escalation, but hardliners within Pakistan will likely call for action. 

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What El Chapo is really like, according to the wife of one his closest henchman

• The US is doomed to lose an increasingly hot missile race in Asia and the Pacific because of severe geographic, political, and military disadvantages against China. 
• A treaty prevented the US and Russia from building missiles with medium-length ranges, but China has built a large fleet of such missiles designed to take out US military bases in the Pacific and aircraft carriers. 
• The US can try to counter these missiles with missiles of their own, but it's a fight it's sure to lose. There may be other options, however.

The US announced on Thursday that it would begin testing a whole new class of previously banned missiles in August, but the US's chief rival, China, has a miles-long head start in that department.

The US's new class of missiles are designed to destroy targets in intermediate ranges, or between 300 and 3,000 miles. The US has many shorter-range systems and a fleet of intercontinental ballistic missiles that can travel almost around the world. 

A 1987 treaty with Russia banned these mid-range missiles, but the treaty's recent demise has now opened an opportunity for the US to counter China's arsenal of "carrier-killer" missiles.

Read more: If China's 'carrier-killer' missiles work, it's making one of the dumbest moves of the century

China, as it seeks to build up a blue-water navy to surpass the US's, has increasingly touted its fleet of missiles that work within intermediate ranges and can target ships at sea, including US aircraft carriers — one of the US's foremost weapons. 

China has suggested sinking carriers and threatened to let the missiles fly after the US checked its unilateral claims to ownership of the South China Sea. 

Now, unbound by the treaty, the US can in theory counter China's intermediate-range missiles with missiles of its own. But the reality is that China holds several seemingly insurmountable advantages in this specific missile fight.

Geography weighs against the US

China has a big, mountainous country full of mobile missile launchers it can drive, park, and shoot anywhere.

The US has a network of mainland and island allies it could base missiles with, but that would require an ally's consent. Simply put, the US hasn't even explored this option.

"We haven't engaged any of our allies about forward deployment," a US defense official told Reuters. "Honestly, we haven't been thinking about this because we have been scrupulously abiding by the treaty."

The US could place missiles in Japan, but Japan hates the US military presence there and would face economic punishment from China. The same is true of South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and Taiwan.

Read more:China's military buildup is just getting started, and one expert says to expect 'something new' this year

Furthermore, US missiles on a small island would act as a giant target on that patch of land, painting it as the first place China would wipe off the map in a conflict.

Guam, for instance, could host US missiles as a US territory, but a few missiles from China, potentially nuclear-tipped, would totally level the tiny island. 

While China would simply have to hit a small target-rich island, the US would have to breach China's airspace and hunt down missile launchers somewhere within hundreds of thousands of square miles. US jets would face a massive People's Liberation Army air-defense network and air force, and that's if US jets even get off the ground.

Recent war games held at Rand Corp. suggests the US's most powerful jets, the F-22 and F-35, probably wouldn't even make it off the ground in a real fight in which China's massive rocket force lets loose. 

Can't fix stupid

Ultimately, basing US intermediate-range missiles in the Pacific represents a massive political and military challenge for limited utility. 

Read more: How the world's largest military stacks up to the US armed forces

But fortunately for the US, there's little need to match China's intermediate-range forces. 

With submarines, the US can have secret, hidden missile launchers all over the Pacific. Importantly, these submarines wouldn't even have to surface to fire, therefore they would be out of the range of the "carrier killers."

The US has options to address China's impressive missile forces, but loading up a Pacific island with new US missiles probably isn't the smart way to do it.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What El Chapo is really like, according to the wife of one his closest henchman

• India's army claims to have found footprints for the elusive Abominable Snowman, or Yeti.
• An Indian mountaineering expedition team said it found the footprints belonging to the "mythical beast" in April.
• The alleged footprints measured 32" by 15".
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

The Indian Army claims to have spotted footprints belonging to the Abominable Snowman, or Yeti, in the mountainous border of Nepal and Tibet.

An Indian mountaineering expedition team said it found the footprints belonging to the "mythical beast" in April. The alleged footprints measured 32" by 15".

Here's what the Indian Army claims to be the footprints of the creature:

The footprints were found close to a base camp near the Makalu mountains.

The Makalu mountain is the fifth largest mountain in the world and rises to over 8,400 meters.

Makalu is Tibetan for "Great Black" and refers to the granite on the mountain.

A French team of climbers first made it to the peak in 1955. At least 31 people have died attempting to climb the mountain.

Source: NASA, ThoughtCo

The alleged Yeti has been rumored to have existed since 326 B.C.

The creature from Tibetan folklore was said to have existed during Alexander the Great's era.

The Macedonian king requested to see the Yeti but was rebuffed by locals who claimed the creature was not able to handle the low altitude on the ground.

Not everyone is convinced of the Yeti's existence. One theory is that evaporation and melting snow causes "overstepping," an effect that makes the tracks from an animal's back foot overlap with the tracks from its front foot.

Source: National Geographic

Some people were displeased with the description of the Yeti.

One former member of parliament said that while he was proud of the Indian Army, he cautioned against describing the Yeti as a "beast."

"But please, you are Indian, don't call Yeti as beast," Tarun Vijay said on Twitter. "Show respect for them."

• At 4:06 p.m. on May 1, 2011 (12:36 a.m., May 2, in Pakistan), the White House's official photographer, Pete Souza, took an iconic image of President Barack Obama and his national security team.
• "I need to watch this," Obama is said to have remarked.
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

"Geronimo ... Geronimo. E.K.I.A. Enemy Killed in Action."

The time in Abbottabad, Pakistan, was approximately 1 a.m. local time (3:51 p.m. EST) when Navy Adm. William McRaven, then the commander of SEAL Team 6, relayed word that Osama bin Laden had been killed.

At 4:06 p.m. on May 1, 2011 (12:36 a.m., May 2, in Pakistan), the White House's official photographer, Pete Souza, took the following iconic photograph of President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and the national-security team monitoring Operation Neptune Spear in real time.

"I need to watch this," Obama is said to have remarked, hunkering down in a spare chair in one of the White House's smaller conference rooms.

Obama entered the room as one of the two SEAL helicopters crash-landed at the bin Laden compound. "I was thinking that this is not an ideal start," Obama would later tell CNN's Peter Bergen. He described the call to strike the compound as "emblematic of presidential decision-making."

"You're always working with probabilities," he said, "and you make a decision, not based on 100% certainty, but with the best information that you've got."

All 23 SEALs were unharmed, and the terrorist leader behind the September 11 attacks on the US, Osama bin Laden, was killed.

[Seated in this picture from left to right: Vice President Biden, the President, Brig. Gen. Webb, Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Standing, from left, are: Admiral Mike Mullen, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; National Security Advisor Tom Donilon; Chief of Staff Bill Daley; Tony Blinken, National Security Advisor to the Vice President; Audrey Tomason Director for Counterterrorism; John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism; and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.]

SEE ALSO: Navy SEAL's book on the bin Laden killing shows the real reason photos of the body were never released

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The US is showing its strength against Russia by sending its most advanced warplanes to the Black Sea

• Johnson & Johnson CEO Alex Gorsky, Kinder Morgan executive chairman Richard Kinder, and FedEx CEO Frederick W. Smith all served overseas.
• Here are other Fortune 500 CEOs who have served in the military. 
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Few institutions teach discipline, management, logistics, and efficiency like the US Armed Forces, so it's no surprise that Ranker's list of Fortune 500 CEOs finds many military veterans. 

Below are some of the most accomplished military vets who went on to lead Fortune 500 companies.

SEE ALSO: 12 survival tricks from the Eagle Scouts you'd need to master if you're stranded and have to fend for yourself

Johnson & Johnson CEO Alex Gorsky was a member of the Army's elite Rangers and served in Europe, the US, and Panama.

West Point graduate Alex Gorsky served in the Army for six years, eventually achieving the rank of captain. 

He became the CEO of Johnson & Johnson at the age of 51, where he remains to this day. He also serves on the Board of Directors for IBM.

Source: Ranker

Former Procter & Gamble CEO Robert A. McDonald served in the 82nd Airborne Division, retiring with the rank of Captain.

Robert A. McDonald wanted to be in the Army so bad that he wrote his congressman for a special exemption at just 11 years old. Eventually, he came of age and got his wish.

He is a former CEO of Procter & Gamble, and also served as secretary of Veterans Affairs in the Obama administration, where he worked to improve veterans' access to healthcare.

Source: Ranker

Robert Myers, chairman of Casey's General Store, spent 22 years in the US Army.

Robert Myers spent 22 years in the US Army, serving in Germany, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. He retired with the rank of lieutenant colonel in 1988.

Afterward, he began working at Casey's General as a manager. Within a few years he worked his way to the top of the corporation, which owns hundreds of stores across America, many of which are situated in small towns with populations of 5,000 or less.

Source: Fortune, Casey's General Store

James A. Skinner of McDonald's and the Walgreens Boots Alliance served in the US Navy for nearly 10 years.

Skinner began his career working at a McDonald's in Iowa. He then went on to join the US Navy and serve for nearly 10 years, including two tours of the Gulf of Tonkin during the Vietnam war.

When he returned from service, he again worked at McDonald's, this time as a manager. From there he worked his way up to CEO. He now serves as the executive chairman of Walgreens Boots Alliance, a holding company that owns Walgreens and the UK pharmacy Boots.

Source: Fortune, Ranker

Herb Vest, head of financial advisory firm H.D. Vest, served nearly four years in Vietnam.

Long before Herb Vest sold his financial advisory firm, H.D. Vest, to Wells Fargo in 2001 for $127.5 million, he'd served nearly four years in Vietnam. He was in the airborne cavalry, where he led dangerous helicopter raids as an officer.

After success in financial advising, Vest funded an online dating site, True.com, which went bankrupt in 2012.

Source: Ranker, Bizjournals

Viacom founder Sumner Redstone intercepted and analyzed coded Japanese communications during WWII.

Redstone is the current chairman emeritus of media empire Viacom, and is estimated to be worth $4.5 billion.

The Boston native and Harvard graduate took one of his first post-college jobs with the US Army during World War II, where he worked to intercept and analyze coded Japanese communications.

Source: Ranker, Forbes

Former Foot Locker CEO Ken Hicks served in the Korean War.

Ken Hicks is the former CEO and president of the sneaker chain Foot Locker, and he has also held high-level executive roles at JC Penney and Payless ShoeSource. 

His father was a World War II veteran, and Hicks served in the military as an artillery battery commander in the Korean War.

Source: Ranker

Richard Kinder, executive chairman of Kinder Morgan, was once a Captain in the US Army.

Richard Kinder is executive chairman of Kinder Morgan, Inc., one of the largest energy companies in North America, worth approximately $115 billion.

Before he became a big player in the energy sector, with stints at giant corporations like Enron, he was a Captain in the US Army. He served in Vietnam.

Source: Ranker, Chron

Former Lumeta chief Tom Dent was a decorated fighter pilot in the US Navy.

Tom Dent is the former CEO of a management and logistics firm called Lumeta, but before that, he was a decorated fighter pilot in the US Navy.

Dent served three tours of duty, where he learned a great deal about leadership. He's said that he still has his 1960s copy of "Small Unit Leadership: A Commonsense Approach."

Source: Ranker, USA Today

Former Rockwell Collins CEO Clayton M. Jones was once in the US Air Force.

Jones is the former CEO of the aeronautics firm Rockwell Collins, and he's said that he was served by his experience as a fighter pilot with the US Air Force. He is now a fellow at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

Source: Ranker

Former General Motors CEO Daniel Akerson once served as a Naval officer.

Formerly a Carlyle Group exec and CEO of GM, Daniel Akerson has a reputation for getting things done, so much so, that he once removed tubes from his arm and discharged himself from a hospital after growing impatient waiting on doctors.

Akerson is the son of a World War II veteran. He served as a Naval officer aboard the destroyer DUPONT.

Source: Ranker, Mlive, USNA

Former Lockheed Martin CEO Robert J. Stevens joined the US Marines straight out of high school at the age of 18.

Stevens was the CEO of Lockheed Martin from 2004 until 2012. Current CEO Marillyn Hewson took over from Stevens a year later.

Stevens joined the US Marines straight out of high school at the age of 18. He became a highly decorated serviceman, receiving several awards including the Globe and Anchor Award from the Marine Corps Scholarship Foundation, the Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation's Circle of Honor Award, and the Marine Corps Scholarship Foundation's Semper Fidelis Award.

Source: Ranker

Former ConocoPhillips CEO James Mulva was stationed by the US Navy in Bahrain.

In 2012, James Mulva stepped down as CEO of energy giant ConocoPhillips, which he had led since 2002. 

Mulva attended college in an ROTC program before being stationed by the US Navy in Bahrain. While in the Middle East, he learned about the energy industry and its geopolitical implications first hand.

Source: Ranker

Former Verizon chairman Lowell McAdam spent six years in the US Navy Civil Engineer Corps.

After serving as Verizon CEO for seven years, McAdam stepped down in 2018. Before he was the head of the America's largest mobile network, he spent six years in the US Navy Civil Engineer Corps, where he became a licensed professional engineer.

In the Navy, he worked with the Seabees, a special construction unit. McAdam's unit was even responsible for building sets for the hit film "Top Gun."

Source: Ranker, Fortune

FedEx CEO Frederick W. Smith served with the US Marines in Vietnam in two tours of duty.

Smith began his life as the son of a prominent businessman, but with a condition that left him confined to crutches until the age of 10. He outgrew his ailment, went on to play sports in high school, and ultimately worked as CEO of FedEx.

Smith served with the US Marines in Vietnam in two tours of duty, one as a an infantryman, and another as a pilot. He received various medals for his service long before he was hailed as "The Father of overnight delivery."

Source: Ranker, USNews

• As the trade war heats up, Chinese media has threatened the US with the possibility of a ban on sales of rare-earth elements, materials critical to the production of cutting-edge weapons.
• The US is largely dependent on China for the rare-earth materials that go into its products, and that includes Department of Defense products like guided-missile destroyers and F-35 stealth jets.
• The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, for example, requires 920 pounds of rare-earth materials. Several other systems also require these elements.
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

China is threatening the US with the possibility that it may withhold rare-earth elements critical to the production of a number of different US products, including missiles and stealth fighters.

The US has been turning up the heat on China in the ongoing trade war. Now Chinese media is warning that China can up the stakes.

"United States, don't underestimate China's ability to strike back," the People's Daily, the paper of the ruling Chinese Communist Party, wrote Wednesday, according to Reuters.

"Will rare earths become a counter weapon for China to hit back against the pressure the United States has put on for no reason at all? The answer is no mystery," the newspaper said in a commentary, ominously adding, "Don't say we didn't warn you!"

Other Chinese media outlets released similar articles.

Rare-earth elements, of which China produces the overwhelming majority, play an important role in the production of defense systems. For example, a US Navy Virginia-class nuclear-powered fast-attack submarine requires 9,200 pounds of rare-earth metals, while an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer needs 5,200 pounds.

US defense contractors such as Raytheon and Lockheed Martin use rare-earth metals to make high-end guidance systems and sensors for missiles and other military platforms, Reuters reported.

An F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, a fifth-generation stealth jet built to give the US an edge over rivals like China, requires 920 pounds of rare-earth materials, according to Asia Times, which reported that the US has an almost nonexistent ability to produce rare-earth materials.

"The US side wants to use the products made by China's exported rare earths to counter and suppress China's development," the People's Daily said on Wednesday. "The Chinese people will never accept this!"

The paper's rhetoric suggests that China would intentionally take aim at the US defense sector, which Beijing believes is working to contain China's rise.

The US relies on China for as much as 80% of its rare-earth materials, according to Bloomberg. "Rare earths are a niche specialty and critical to the Defense Department," Simon Moores, the managing director at Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, told the outlet.

"Rare earths are essential to the production, sustainment, and operation of US military equipment," a 2016 Government Accountability Office report said. "Reliable access to the necessary material, regardless of the overall level of defense demand, is a bedrock requirement for DOD."

If China were to pull the plug, it could certainly lead to complications, although there is the possibility that the department could turn to alternative sources, given that its requirement is only 1% of the total US demand for rare-earth elements.

Beijing has not yet said that it will take this step, but it is certainly troubling that Chinese media is threatening this move as a response to US actions in the trade war.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This stunning visualization breaks down all the ingredients in your favorite processed foods

• Thursday was the 75th anniversary of D-Day, the seaborne invasion of Nazi-occupied France that changed the course of World War II.
• The opened up another front in the war, dividing Nazi forces.
• Peter Macdiarmid's photographs show the human cost and devastation the invasion took.
• The images compare how the affected areas looked right after D-Day to how they looked more recently.
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Seventy-five years ago, on June 6, 1944, Allied soldiers stormed Juno Beach in Nazi-occupied France, changing the course of World War II.

The D-Day invasion, code named Operation Overlord, was the largest seaborne invasion in history.

Almost 5,000 landing and assault craft accompanied by 289 escort vessels and 277 minesweepers from Canada, the US, Britain, and Australia took part in the operation. The Allies suffered 226,386 casualties, but it proved a decisive moment in the war.

Suddenly, the Nazis were forced to fight on another front in Europe. But the cost of D-Day, in both human lives and devastation of the surrounding regions of France, was immense.

The following photos from the Getty photographer Peter Macdiarmid show an amazing juxtaposition of images from the affected areas of modern France with photos of the invasion from 1944 overlaid on top.

Jeremy Bender composed an earlier version of this article.

SEE ALSO: Here's a Nazi propaganda video saying the D-Day invasion failed

Juno Beach on May 8, 2014, in Bernieres sur Mer, France, juxtaposed with a Canadian soldier at the head of a group of German prisoners of war, including two officers, on Juno Beach on June 6, 1944.

The old village fountain on May 7, 2014, in Sainte Marie du Mont, France, where a group of American soldiers stood on June 12, 1944.

A view of the roadway on May 7, 2014, in Saint Lo, France, where US Army trucks and jeeps once drove through.

The cliffs on May 6, 2014, in Pointe du Hoc, France, where German prisoners were gathered as an American flag was deployed for signaling on Omaha Beach.

A view of the market square on May 6, 2014, in Trevieres, France, juxtaposed with the image of the body of a German soldier belonging to the 2. Infanterie Regiment on the Market Square on June 15, 1944.

The street area and Notre-Dame Nativity church on May 5, 2014, in Bernieres-sur-Mer, France, where a Canadian soldier was directing traffic on D-Day.

The seafront and Juno Beach on May 5, 2014, in Bernieres-sur-Mer, France, juxtaposed with troops of the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division landing at the beach on D-Day.

The rue de Bayeux on May 5, 2014, in Caen, France. An older couple watched a Canadian soldier with a bulldozer working in the ruins of a house in the rue de Bayeux on July 10, 1944.

The graveyard with the church of Saint Georges de Basly in the background on May 5, 2014, in Basly, France, seen juxtaposed with three soldiers of the 23rd Field Ambulance of the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division placing flowers on graves.

The seafront on April 5, 2014, in Weymouth, England, where US troops walked on the Esplanade on their way to embark on ships bound for Omaha Beach for the D-Day landings in Normandy in June 1944.

The harbor on April 5, 2014, in Weymouth, England, where boats full of US troops waited to take part in Operation Overlord in Normandy in June 1944.