Latest news with #AmericanNavy
India.com
29-05-2025
- General
- India.com
Atom bombs that disappeared during World War II were never found..., can explode... and turn world into...
Atom bombs that disappeared during World War II were never found..., can explode... and turn world into... There are 9 countries in the world that have nuclear weapons. These include US, Russia, India, China, France, United Kingdom, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan. However, there are many nuclear weapons in the world about which no one knows till date and those remain as area of concern. During the Second World War, when superpowers like the US and Russia were about to attack each other with nuclear bombs, many planes with nuclear bombs were flying and were ready to wreak havoc at the go signal. During this time, many nuclear bombs had to be dropped. Although a few weapons were recovered, and a few were not found despite all the search and they were declared missing. Some bombs, however, also exploded when they fell down. According to a report, since 1950, more than 30 such accidents have happened. When nuclear weapons were dropped from the plane and they either exploded or were lost. However, no one has confirmed such accidents. The reason behind this is that knowing about the damage and side effects caused by such accidents will spread fear in the world. Despite this, some incidents have come to light. Such accidents are known as 'Broken Arrow'. On February 5, 1958, a Mark 15 thermonuclear bomb was dropped near Georgia's Tybee Island. It is said that it was dropped to reduce the weight of the plane for a safe landing. After the bomb was dropped, when it was searched for, it was not found. Even underwater wave detection equipment was used but it was not found. After which it was finally declared missing. Apart from this, in 1965 a B43 thermonuclear bomb fell into the Philippine Sea off the coast of Japan. It is said that it slipped and fell and was never found again after falling. Not only this, an American Navy officer also went missing along with this bomb. A huge amount of money was spent on the search operation but still it was not found.
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump wants more ships? Korea stands ready to help build them.
The White House issued an executive order last month to restore America's maritime dominance, a move that went largely unnoticed amid the larger frenzy of actions being taken in the Trump administration's first 100 days. Despite this low profile, the order, part of a series of actions that include the creation of a White House Shipbuilding Council and the introduction of the bipartisan U.S. SHIPS Act, is of critical importance to rebuilding a key pillar of American national security: the U.S. shipbuilding industry. Why the sudden bipartisan determination to revive American shipbuilding? When Japanese bombs dropped on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the U.S. responded to a far more experienced naval adversary by outbuilding it. In 1943, only three aircraft carriers were under construction in Japanese shipyards, while 22 were being built in the U.S. Though shipbuilding alone did not determine World War II, it proved that superior industrial capacity was a critical enabler of success in prolonged great power conflicts. Today, that capacity has largely disappeared. Over 80 percent of U.S. shipyards have closed since the 1980s, and the U.S. builds fewer than five ships per year. Production has moved overseas to America's number one competitor, China. Chinese shipbuilding capacity is now 232 times greater than our own. China's navy is on track to have 460 vessels by 2030, dwarfing the American Navy's 295 ships. In today's climate of renewed great power competition, Republicans and Democrats alike are racing to rebuild this critical industry. While their efforts rely largely on supporting industry champions at home, the solution may lie with a key Asian ally whose shipyards are among the world's most productive — one that stands ready to help America rebuild its maritime power. To close the ship gap, revive American industry and breathe new life into one of our oldest alliances, the United States should pursue a strategic shipbuilding partnership with South Korea. As a U.S. ally since 1953, the Republic of Korea already hosts 28,500 American troops in the Indo-Pacific. Despite this, the alliance's economic and industrial potential remains underdeveloped. China is the world's largest shipbuilding nation, but Korea is the second largest. Internationally recognized for its sophistication, productivity and professionalism, Korean firms such as HD Hyundai, Hanwha Ocean and Samsung Heavy Industries have productivity rates two to three times higher than competing American firms, and produce commercial and naval vessels alike. In 2025 alone, South Korea accounted for 27 percent of global ship orders. This is exactly the kind of partner the U.S. needs. A new partnership could operate through a dual-shore approach that transforms the traditional U.S.-South Korea military alliance into an integrated strategic industrial base. The first shore is the United States. In 2024, Hanwha Ocean acquired Philly Shipyard, marking the first Korean ownership of an American shipbuilding facility. Washington should expand this model and negotiate the construction or transfer of additional shipyards to be operated by Korean firms, either independently or as joint ventures with American shipbuilders such as HII or General Dynamics. This approach would expand production capacity, accumulate industry best practices and create new jobs across America. These shipyards could produce both naval combatants and commercial vessels, presenting Korean firms with new revenue streams, international shipping companies greater supply chain resiliency, American communities new jobs, and the U.S. Navy more ships. The second shore is South Korea. Hyundai Heavy Industries announced in April that the Korean firm could build up to five Aegis destroyers per year for the U.S. Navy if bilateral cooperation is formalized. While new shipyards in America are getting up and running, the U.S. should lean more on its allies to sustain its maritime strength. Washington should formalize agreements with capable Korean shipyards to procure naval combatants and secure access for maintenance, repair and resupply missions in the region. Hanwha successfully rendered these services to the U.S. Naval Ship Wally Schirra in March, proving the arrangement's feasibility. By institutionalizing production and servicing contracts, Korean shipbuilders can help expand the American fleet while sustaining ongoing forward-deployed operations. President Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs against South Korea, despite the two countries' free trade agreement and long-standing relations, put the U.S.-Korea alliance on shaky ground. That said, it also made clear that allies benefiting from American security guarantees must make visible contributions to core U.S. interests. This dual-shore shipbuilding strategy is a model of how an ally can do just that. For one, this initiative would turn a conventional defense treaty into a fully-fledged industrial alliance, leveraging both countries' military, technological and manufacturing strengths to produce a maritime force capable of defending shared interests. Second, it would put the alliance on firmer ground by broadening the coalition of invested stakeholders. While a mutual defense treaty is at the mercy of world leaders, an industrial alliance supporting thousands of jobs in communities across both countries is far more resilient. By tying foreign policy objectives to local political interests, both capitals can strengthen and diversify the buy-in to this alliance. Today, American allies around the world worry that the U.S. has given up on alliances. By transforming the U.S.-South Korea alliance, Washington has the chance to send a clear and critical signal: alliances must deliver, and they can deliver when built around mutual interest and resilience. Korea is ready to become a cornerstone of a stronger, more mutually beneficial alliance system; it is primed to help carry the weight of some of the most pressing items on America's foreign and domestic political agendas, bringing jobs and security back to America. The burden is on Washington to recognize the urgency and potential of the moment and set sail for that stronger, safer future. Arjun Akwei is a Schwarzman Scholar and a former research associate at Harvard University's Weatherhead Center for International Affairs. Jinwan Park is a Nonresident James A. Kelly Korea Fellow at Pacific Forum and a nonresident fellow at the European Centre for North Korean Studies at the University of Vienna. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
08-05-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Trump wants more ships? Korea stands ready to help build them.
The White House issued an executive order last month to restore America's maritime dominance, a move that went largely unnoticed amid the larger frenzy of actions being taken in the Trump administration's first 100 days. Despite this low profile, the order, part of a series of actions that include the creation of a White House Shipbuilding Council and the introduction of the bipartisan U.S. SHIPS Act, is of critical importance to rebuilding a key pillar of American national security: the U.S. shipbuilding industry. Why the sudden bipartisan determination to revive American shipbuilding? When Japanese bombs dropped on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the U.S. responded to a far more experienced naval adversary by outbuilding it. In 1943, only three aircraft carriers were under construction in Japanese shipyards, while 22 were being built in the U.S. Though shipbuilding alone did not determine World War II, it proved that superior industrial capacity was a critical enabler of success in prolonged great power conflicts. Today, that capacity has largely disappeared. Over 80 percent of U.S. shipyards have closed since the 1980s, and the U.S. builds fewer than five ships per year. Production has moved overseas to America's number one competitor, China. Chinese shipbuilding capacity is now 232 times greater than our own. China's navy is on track to have 460 vessels by 2030, dwarfing the American Navy's 295 ships. In today's climate of renewed great power competition, Republicans and Democrats alike are racing to rebuild this critical industry. While their efforts rely largely on supporting industry champions at home, the solution may lie with a key Asian ally whose shipyards are among the world's most productive — one that stands ready to help America rebuild its maritime power. To close the ship gap, revive American industry and breathe new life into one of our oldest alliances, the United States should pursue a strategic shipbuilding partnership with South Korea. As a U.S. ally since 1953, the Republic of Korea already hosts 28,500 American troops in the Indo-Pacific. Despite this, the alliance's economic and industrial potential remains underdeveloped. China is the world's largest shipbuilding nation, but Korea is the second largest. Internationally recognized for its sophistication, productivity and professionalism, Korean firms such as HD Hyundai, Hanwha Ocean and Samsung Heavy Industries have productivity rates two to three times higher than competing American firms, and produce commercial and naval vessels alike. In 2025 alone, South Korea accounted for 27 percent of global ship orders. This is exactly the kind of partner the U.S. needs. A new partnership could operate through a dual-shore approach that transforms the traditional U.S.-South Korea military alliance into an integrated strategic industrial base. The first shore is the United States. In 2024, Hanwha Ocean acquired Philly Shipyard, marking the first Korean ownership of an American shipbuilding facility. Washington should expand this model and negotiate the construction or transfer of additional shipyards to be operated by Korean firms, either independently or as joint ventures with American shipbuilders such as HII or General Dynamics. This approach would expand production capacity, accumulate industry best practices and create new jobs across America. These shipyards could produce both naval combatants and commercial vessels, presenting Korean firms with new revenue streams, international shipping companies greater supply chain resiliency, American communities new jobs, and the U.S. Navy more ships. The second shore is South Korea. Hyundai Heavy Industries announced in April that the Korean firm could build up to five Aegis destroyers per year for the U.S. Navy if bilateral cooperation is formalized. While new shipyards in America are getting up and running, the U.S. should lean more on its allies to sustain its maritime strength. Washington should formalize agreements with capable Korean shipyards to procure naval combatants and secure access for maintenance, repair and resupply missions in the region. Hanwha successfully rendered these services to the U.S. Naval Ship Wally Schirra in March, proving the arrangement's feasibility. By institutionalizing production and servicing contracts, Korean shipbuilders can help expand the American fleet while sustaining ongoing forward-deployed operations. President Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs against South Korea, despite the two countries' free trade agreement and long-standing relations, put the U.S.-Korea alliance on shaky ground. That said, it also made clear that allies benefiting from American security guarantees must make visible contributions to core U.S. interests. This dual-shore shipbuilding strategy is a model of how an ally can do just that. For one, this initiative would turn a conventional defense treaty into a fully-fledged industrial alliance, leveraging both countries' military, technological and manufacturing strengths to produce a maritime force capable of defending shared interests. Second, it would put the alliance on firmer ground by broadening the coalition of invested stakeholders. While a mutual defense treaty is at the mercy of world leaders, an industrial alliance supporting thousands of jobs in communities across both countries is far more resilient. By tying foreign policy objectives to local political interests, both capitals can strengthen and diversify the buy-in to this alliance. Today, American allies around the world worry that the U.S. has given up on alliances. By transforming the U.S.-South Korea alliance, Washington has the chance to send a clear and critical signal: alliances must deliver, and they can deliver when built around mutual interest and resilience. Korea is ready to become a cornerstone of a stronger, more mutually beneficial alliance system; it is primed to help carry the weight of some of the most pressing items on America's foreign and domestic political agendas, bringing jobs and security back to America. The burden is on Washington to recognize the urgency and potential of the moment and set sail for that stronger, safer future. Arjun Akwei is a Schwarzman Scholar and a former research associate at Harvard University's Weatherhead Center for International Affairs. Jinwan Park is a Nonresident James A. Kelly Korea Fellow at Pacific Forum and a nonresident fellow at the European Centre for North Korean Studies at the University of Vienna.
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Movie Review: 'Warfare,' a forensic portrait of combat, hunts war-movie clichés
Ray Mendoza and Alex Garland 's 'Warfare' is more defined by what it isn't than what it is. In their Iraq War -set film, there's never any description of a wider strategy. There are no backstories to the American Navy SEALs whom we follow on an unspectacular mission. There's not a short monologue about mom's cooking back home, let alone a speculative word about life after the war. There's not even a dramatic close-up to be had. 'Warfare' aspires to be, simply, just that. We are effectively embedded in a platoon on what seems to be a minor mission in Iraq in 2006. Walking in two single-file lines down a Ramadi street at night, one soldier says, 'I like this house.' Under the cover of darkness, they rush inside the apartment building to set up their position while keeping the family inside quiet. In the morning, their sniper, laid out on a raised bed, sweats while looking out on an increasingly anxious scene. His rifle's crosshairs drift through the street scenes outside, as suspected jihadists mobilize around them. War-movie cliches have been rigorously rooted out of 'Warfare,' a terse and chillingly brutal immersion in a moment of the Iraq War. Clouds of IED smoke and cries of agony fill Garland and Mendoza's film, with little but the faces of the SEALs to ground a nearly real-time, based-on-a-true-story dramatization. Few words are spoken outside the intense patter of official Navy jargon. When the mission comes to its bloody and hectic conclusion, the only utterance left hanging in the clouded air is the unanswered, blood-curdling shriek of a woman watching the men leave her bombed-out home: 'Why?' A year after 'Civil War,' a movie predicated on bringing the horror of war home to American soil, Garland has returned with a film even more designed to implode fanciful and far-away ideas of war by bringing it acutely close. Mendoza, an Iraq War veteran who served as a consultant on 'Civil War,' co-writes and co-directs 'Warfare' from his own first-hand experience in Iraq. The movie is introduced as based on the memories of the troops involved, and 'Warfare' gives little reason to quibble with its ultra verisimilitude. That doesn't mean Mendoza and Garland's film isn't without its sympathies. For a movie quaking with sonic tremors, the first thumps sounded in 'Warfare' come from the 2004 music video to Eric Prydz's 'Call on Me,' as the battalion bops in harmony to the female bodies gyrating on a screen in front of them. In battle, they are hardly any less choreographed. If a mode of American war movie leans toward showing the follies of war on the ground, the soldiers of 'Warfare' — while not immune to a little 'Call on Me' imitation — are supremely precise. When things go haywire here, it's not because the SEALs aren't alert or are haphazard in their regard for the lives around them. Among them are sniper Elliott (Cosmo Jarvis), Eric (Will Poulter), Tommy (Kit Connor), Sam (Joseph Quinn) and Ray (D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai). We never learn anything about any of them except their fidelity to their comrades and their willingness to do what's necessary when even the heaviest fire is raining down on them. Sounds of fire pop through the immersive sound design of Glenn Freemantle. Whether 'Warfare' is the most accurate war film ever made or not, it's certainly among the most sonically enveloping experiences of battle. After an explosion rocks the men, 'Warfare' staggers in a concussed haze. The film's craft, generally, is impressive, including production designer Mark Digby's recreation of the Ramadi block. Despite all the effort to shed 'Warfare' of war-movie tropes, though, they do intrude in one glaring way. Like countless movies before it, 'Warfare' runs its credits alongside photographs of the real SEALs (some faces are blurred out), along with footage of them with the actors and filmmakers on set. To honor the real men is, of course, laudable and necessary. But the behind-the-scenes tone of the epilogue chafes with the spell cast by 'Warfare.' The point of 'Warfare,' to me, seems less about paying these Navy SEALs tribute than showing combat how it truly unspools — messily, chaotically and pointlessly. With the exception of a pair of Iraqi interpreters, 'Warfare' — despite its broad title — limits itself to one side of a battle. But I'd argue the only bad guy in 'Warfare' isn't on either side of the fight, but is found in the aerial viewpoint — used sporadically by the filmmakers — from a U.S. plane overhead that renders every person mere pixels on a screen. In this forensic portrait of war, the only way to not get what's happening on the ground is to be too far from it. François Truffaut famously said there's no such thing as an anti-war film because movies inherently glamorize war. 'Warfare,' though, is intent on challenging that old adage. 'Warfare,' an A24 release is rated R by the Motion Picture Association for intense war violence and bloody/grisly images, and language throughout. Running time: 107 minutes. Three stars out of four.
Associated Press
08-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Associated Press
Movie Review: ‘Warfare,' a forensic portrait of combat, hunts war-movie clichés
Ray Mendoza and Alex Garland 's 'Warfare' is more defined by what it isn't than what it is. In their Iraq War -set film, there's never any description of a wider strategy. There are no backstories to the American Navy SEALs whom we follow on an unspectacular mission. There's not a short monologue about mom's cooking back home, let alone a speculative word about life after the war. There's not even a dramatic close-up to be had. 'Warfare' aspires to be, simply, just that. We are effectively embedded in a platoon on what seems to be a minor mission in Iraq in 2006. Walking in two single-file lines down a Ramadi street at night, one soldier says, 'I like this house.' Under the cover of darkness, they rush inside the apartment building to set up their position while keeping the family inside quiet. In the morning, their sniper, laid out on a raised bed, sweats while looking out on an increasingly anxious scene. His rifle's crosshairs drift through the street scenes outside, as suspected jihadists mobilize around them. War-movie cliches have been rigorously rooted out of 'Warfare,' a terse and chillingly brutal immersion in a moment of the Iraq War. Clouds of IED smoke and cries of agony fill Garland and Mendoza's film, with little but the faces of the SEALs to ground a nearly real-time, based-on-a-true-story dramatization. Few words are spoken outside the intense patter of official Navy jargon. When the mission comes to its bloody and hectic conclusion, the only utterance left hanging in the clouded air is the unanswered, blood-curdling shriek of a woman watching the men leave her bombed-out home: 'Why?' A year after 'Civil War,' a movie predicated on bringing the horror of war home to American soil, Garland has returned with a film even more designed to implode fanciful and far-away ideas of war by bringing it acutely close. Mendoza, an Iraq War veteran who served as a consultant on 'Civil War,' co-writes and co-directs 'Warfare' from his own first-hand experience in Iraq. The movie is introduced as based on the memories of the troops involved, and 'Warfare' gives little reason to quibble with its ultra verisimilitude. That doesn't mean Mendoza and Garland's film isn't without its sympathies. For a movie quaking with sonic tremors, the first thumps sounded in 'Warfare' come from the 2004 music video to Eric Prydz's 'Call on Me,' as the battalion bops in harmony to the female bodies gyrating on a screen in front of them. In battle, they are hardly any less choreographed. If a mode of American war movie leans toward showing the follies of war on the ground, the soldiers of 'Warfare' — while not immune to a little 'Call on Me' imitation — are supremely precise. When things go haywire here, it's not because the SEALs aren't alert or are haphazard in their regard for the lives around them. Among them are sniper Elliott (Cosmo Jarvis), Eric (Will Poulter), Tommy (Kit Connor), Sam (Joseph Quinn) and Ray (D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai). We never learn anything about any of them except their fidelity to their comrades and their willingness to do what's necessary when even the heaviest fire is raining down on them. Sounds of fire pop through the immersive sound design of Glenn Freemantle. Whether 'Warfare' is the most accurate war film ever made or not, it's certainly among the most sonically enveloping experiences of battle. After an explosion rocks the men, 'Warfare' staggers in a concussed haze. The film's craft, generally, is impressive, including production designer Mark Digby's recreation of the Ramadi block. Despite all the effort to shed 'Warfare' of war-movie tropes, though, they do intrude in one glaring way. Like countless movies before it, 'Warfare' runs its credits alongside photographs of the real SEALs (some faces are blurred out), along with footage of them with the actors and filmmakers on set. To honor the real men is, of course, laudable and necessary. But the behind-the-scenes tone of the epilogue chafes with the spell cast by 'Warfare.' The point of 'Warfare,' to me, seems less about paying these Navy SEALs tribute than showing combat how it truly unspools — messily, chaotically and pointlessly. With the exception of a pair of Iraqi interpreters, 'Warfare' — despite its broad title — limits itself to one side of a battle. But I'd argue the only bad guy in 'Warfare' isn't on either side of the fight, but is found in the aerial viewpoint — used sporadically by the filmmakers — from a U.S. plane overhead that renders every person mere pixels on a screen. In this forensic portrait of war, the only way to not get what's happening on the ground is to be too far from it. François Truffaut famously said there's no such thing as an anti-war film because movies inherently glamorize war. 'Warfare,' though, is intent on challenging that old adage. 'Warfare,' an A24 release is rated R by the Motion Picture Association for intense war violence and bloody/grisly images, and language throughout. Running time: 107 minutes. Three stars out of four.
