Chủ Nhật, 2 tháng 9, 2018

Youtube daily US Sep 2 2018

(Footsteps)

Hi Guys !

Hi Dhanu !

Where have you been?

I haven't see you for 3 days

I was back to my hometown school

to stamp 3 fingers of my Certificates Senior High School

and what are you doing, Yogi ?

I'm watching anime, Boruto bro

Ohh, Boruto

and you Ikhsan, what are you doing ?

I'm watching Jack Ma's presentation on Youtube

What is that ?

Ohh

I bring some ice cream. Do you want it ?

What's flavour ?

eee, It's durian

I don't like durian, maybe Yogi likes it

Durian. That's my favourite fruit

Do you like it ?

Durian. Yes, I like eating but I don't like the smell, huuh

Hmmm, delicious. Weeek

Let's play PUBG

Let's go let's go

Hi Nilam !

What are you watching ?

I'm watching my favourite Korean Drama

I like watching drama, too.

But not Korean drama

I'll watch my favourite drama

Look! It's so fun

By the way, why did you were all black ?

I'm really really like black

oohh, you really like black colour!

I forgot

We're having a team project

ohh I forgot, emm, I will call them!

Look there!

South-East South-East

Yes, go go. Behind the trees!

Cover me! Please!!!

Where are you guys ?

Do you forget?

We have a team project!!

Oh yeah we're still in the dorm. and we just remembered

We'll gather in the lake, right ?

Yess

Okay

We'll be there in minutes!

Okayyyy

Hi guys

Do you forget?

We have a team project!

let's go

Wait wait!

I'll use my perfume first!

Okay okay

(No signal)

Oh hi guys! thank you for watching

Don't forget to Like and subscribe!

(Drink a cup of coffee)

(The End)

For more infomation >> Interesting Facts about Us with Captions English or Indonesian - Duration: 3:47.

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

Cases Of STDs At Record High In US, CDC says - Duration: 0:35.

For more infomation >> Cases Of STDs At Record High In US, CDC says - Duration: 0:35.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Pakistan could again be eligible next year for CSF.

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

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

【アーカイブ#1】アラサーの夜な夜なLast of Us【VTuber】 - Duration: 1:56:47.

For more infomation >> 【アーカイブ#1】アラサーの夜な夜なLast of Us【VTuber】 - Duration: 1:56:47.

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

【アーカイブ#2】アラサーの夜な夜なLast of Us【VTuber】 - Duration: 1:28:00.

For more infomation >> 【アーカイブ#2】アラサーの夜な夜なLast of Us【VTuber】 - Duration: 1:28:00.

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

Why The Shining Creeps Us Out (Kubrick & Perspective) – The Film Tourist - Duration: 8:45.

Stanley Kubrick's The Shining.

Or, the world's most persuasive argument for taking the stairs.

This movie scares the sh*t out of everyone.

But why?

It's hard to say what exactly is wrong with this place.

Is it haunted?

Is it all in their heads?

Is it possessed by the devil?

Tony?

Something about an Indian burial ground?

"You're located on an Indian burial ground."

Whereas a lot of traditional horror gives us an easy-to-understand reason to sh*t our

pants, The Shining deliberately avoids an easily describable premise - and this is part

of what makes it so damn horrifying.

"You like it?"

It deprives us of logical explanation.

Kubrick accomplishes this in a variety of ways, but I'm here at the Overlook Hotel,

to talk about one of the most surprisingly simple: "perspective".

One of the most effective ways to create a strong sense of perspective is through the

way a shot is framed and sequenced.

See, a shot can be objective, subjective, or fall somewhere in between.

Purely objective shots show us a scene "as it is," a God's-eye point of view, as

if we're eavesdropping or watching a play.

Subjective angles directly insert us into the action, showing the view from, just beside,

or behind a character.

Purely subjective shots take us directly into the eyes of a character, usually by showing

their face first, followed by their visual perspective or emotional experience.

It can also invite us to question what we're seeing, like an unreliable narrator in literature.

In this scene, we see a shot of Danny's face, and then a cut to the girls, then Danny's

face again.

With this simple sequence of shots, we are being shown the events through Danny's mind.

Let's see how Kubrick takes this basic principle of perspective to create an indescribable

supernatural feeling.

Consider the famous scene of Danny riding his tricycle through the hotel's winding

corridors.

"Alright, Danny, gimme some skin!

...Alright."

Using a state of the art piece of equipment for the time, Kubrick is able to achieve supernaturally

smooth movements to follow Danny, showing us the hotel from a child's point of view.

We follow Danny in a traditional subjective shot that emphasizes his experience navigating

a large maze-like hotel, but we don't follow him perfectly - watch how the camera lingers

after he's left frame… and then hurries to catch up with him.

One film scholar calls this "the wandering camera," because the camera ambles along

like its own sentient being, or here, an imagined monster stalking Danny through the halls.

This creates the sense the hotel is alive and watching Danny throughout his sh*tty vacation.

When the twins show up, — "Come play with us."

— we move more intimately into a subjective sequence of Danny's POV, flashing between

his bloody visions.

Danny covers his eyes, and looks again...

And now they're gone.

So, perhaps the girls are just in his head?

By starting with Danny's point of view as we follow him, but then shifting to to a possible

camera-monster's point of view, and then back to Danny's maybe unreliable own vision,

the film undermines our ability to interpret the events in front of us: whose point of

view is this?

Danny's?

The Hotel?

Some Demon?

Now let's consider Jack.

Is all of of this creepy stuff in his head, too?.

Did someone just spike the water with LSD in this otherwise normal hotel?.

Take this scene in the apparently empty Gold Ballroom.

In this scene, we go from a close-up of Jack, as he seemingly addresses an invisible being

— "Hi, Lloyd."

— to the reveal shot of Lloyd.

This subjective sequencing of shots could suggest that Jack is hallucinating.

And just when we're sure that this is all a subjective delusion, Kubrick moves the camera

backward over his shoulder, taking the shot from his direct point of view to a more objective

one.

From there, Kubrick gives the scene an objective reality by showing both characters in a shot

together.

Lloyd's the real deal… we think.

Until Wendy shows up, and the ballroom's suddenly empty, and we're left totally confused

and creeped out.

"Are you out of your f**king mind?"

So, what's going on?

We don't know, and the camera work makes sure we'll never find out.

Now, at times, Jack's point of view even seems to merge with that of the imagined predator

that was following Danny.

In this shot, Jack's view looking down on the model hedge maze blends into a aerial

view of his family wandering through the actual hedges.

This effect happens again as he chases Danny in the final scene.

See how the same kind of shot that used to be stalking Danny through the halls has now

mingled with Jack's point of view, further confounding the various supernatural elements

of the film.

When not using point of view to screw with reality, Kubrick also uses our perception

of physical space to creep us out.

How do you make a huge, otherwise normal hotel and present it as a claustrophobic nightmare?

Kubrick is famous for what is called one-point perspective, which adds to the cramped feel.

With "one point perspective", near-perfect symmetry draws the audience's eye to one vanishing

point at the center of the frame, giving the sensation that we're being drawn into the

shot, which is further enhanced by the tracking shot inward.

It feels uneasy, like the walls are collapsing inwards.

That's why, even though the Overlook Hotel seems like a spacious setting, we feel increasingly

cramped as the movie goes on, almost like: "A kind of claustrophobic reaction, which

can occur when people are shut in together over long periods of time."

By juxtaposing large spaces with much smaller ones, Kubrick is able to get the viewer to

really feel claustrophobic.

This starts with the opening shot of the mountain, which cuts to the shot of the family, clown-car

style.

Then we move from the large sweeping hotel lobby to the Torrences' small hotel quarters.

While the hotel may be large, the Torrences are trapped in increasingly smaller spaces

within it.

"Well, it's very... uh... homey!"

Eventually, Jack ends up locked in a fridge, Danny escapes through a tiny window, and nobody

has any elbow room.

Through these tricks in perspective, Stanley Kubrick is able to add a layer of creepiness

that evades simple description - and that's why The Shining is so great, and why film

nerds will continue to talk about it for years to come.

There is so much more to talk about in The Shining, so if you liked this video, let us

know if you want us

to do another.

And as always, thanks

for watching.

Peace.

For more infomation >> Why The Shining Creeps Us Out (Kubrick & Perspective) – The Film Tourist - Duration: 8:45.

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

JUST THE TWO OF US - Duration: 17:48.

For more infomation >> JUST THE TWO OF US - Duration: 17:48.

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

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

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

field trip filled with excitement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

been supplied by the United States.

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

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

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

humanitarian crisis" in the world today.

"We are here, afraid in Yemen.

They are targeting bridges.

They are targeting schools.

They are targeting roads."

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

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

million Yemenis to the brink of starvation.

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

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

2015.

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

that followed a popular uprising in 2011.

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

Ali Abdullah saleh.

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

Hadi.

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

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

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

Sana'a.

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

And that is when the war got worse.

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

against Houthi targets in the country.

Enter the United States, and other western powers.

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

Coalition fighter jets during flight.

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

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

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

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

and the biggest beneficiary?

You guessed it: Saudi Arabia.

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

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

attack aircrafts, and other equipment.

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

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

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

airstrikes by the Saudi-led coalition.

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

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

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

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

militants.

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

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

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

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

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

offered to Saudi Arabia from 2009 to 2016.

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

department approving billions of dollars in arms sales.

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

on several occasions.

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

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

fewer civilian deaths, because the targeting is more precise.

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

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

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

busses and weddings and so forth that have been hit.

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

to me that looks like a war crime."

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

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

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

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

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

targets.

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

first of all is unconscionable.

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

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

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

ending U.S. involvement in the war.

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

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

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

our government.

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

to stop enabling these kinds of crimes."

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

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

Fareed has warning for US tech industry - Duration: 4:00.

For more infomation >> Fareed has warning for US tech industry - Duration: 4:00.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

even approach.

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

of the world?

How would that war potentially play out?

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

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

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

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

and knocking them out of the conflict early.

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

and a China/India alliance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the US homeland impossible.

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

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

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

combined.

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

hinder their ability to respond to US actions.

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

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

geographic areas of responsibility.

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

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

and Southern Commands.

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

Battlefield 1: Middle East

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

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

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

that transport oil from the region.

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

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

shut off the global oil tap.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canal itself.

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

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

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

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

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

for several reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

American EW assets.

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

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

or inexperienced air forces.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

since.

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

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

with.

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

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

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

combat-ready 5thGen aircraft.

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

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

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

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

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

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

air power would make the Straits of Hormuz impassable.

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

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

of trade routes across the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

eventual oil starvation and defeat.

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

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

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

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

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

55 nuclear attack subs alone.

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

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

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

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

hard pressed to dislodge the US from the Middle East.

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

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

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

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

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

and carrier battle groups in the region.

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

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

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

new ones.

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

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

crippling the economies of coalition nations and the war effort.

Battlefield 2: West Pacific

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

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

dollars.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

homeland.

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

the South China Sea.

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

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

the US homeland.

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

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

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

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

makes up for this shortcoming with its ballistic missile forces.

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

any US base or ship as far out as Guam.

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

American facilities on Guam.

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

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

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

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

forward staging area for weeks.

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

targets of China's opening barrage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

in the Pacific.

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

weapon systems, of which it remains extremely secretive about.

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

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

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

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

from the USS Lake Eerie in the Pacific.

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

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

missile forces.

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

its fleet due to Chinese long-range missile strikes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

modern Virginia class.

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

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

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

installations.

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

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

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

attack subs.

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

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

US attack subs.

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

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

US subs that China would.

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

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

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

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

blockade of the South Pacific, strangling regional powers economically.

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

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

off its own domestic oil reserves.

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

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

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

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

factor in a global war.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

modern nation.

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

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

and ensuring an eventual US victory.

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

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

world war.

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

Let us know your thoughts in the comments!

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

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

See you next time!

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

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

U.S. Steel, United Steelworkers Extend Collective Bargaining Agreements - Duration: 0:33.

For more infomation >> U.S. Steel, United Steelworkers Extend Collective Bargaining Agreements - Duration: 0:33.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Pakistan could again be eligible next year for CSF.

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

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

Breaking News - Angelique Kerber out of US Open after loss to Dominika Cibulkova - Duration: 2:56.

There will be four different grand slam champions for the second successive season after Wimbledon winner Angelique Kerber joined Simona Halep and Caroline Wozniacki in making an early exit in New York

Kerber was the last women to collect two slam titles in a season, winning the Australian and US Opens in 2016 before a dramatic slump last year

She has been resurgent under Wim Fissette, capped by her brilliant victory over Serena Williams at Wimbledon, and had reached at least the quarter-finals at all of the slams, but here she found Dominika Cibulkova a step too far, the Slovakian winning 3-6 6-3 6-3

Kerber said: 'I had my chances, but I couldn't take them, especially in the third set

Also, I was not able actually to play my best tennis in the important moments. 'She was going for it, and she hit the balls really good and played the winners when she has to

I think that was the difference about the match today. You have sometimes days where you are trying everything, but it's not really working as you wish

' The defeats for Kerber, Halep and Wozniacki - all on the new Louis Armstrong Stadium - mean defending champion Sloane Stephens is the only one of the top four seeds still left in the tournament

The sixth seed also went on Saturday, with Caroline Garcia beaten 5-7 6-4 7-6 (7/4) by Carla Suarez Navarro

Cibulkova next plays last year's runner-up, Madison Keys, who avoided an upset by fighting from a set down to defeat Aleksandra Krunic 4-6 6-1 6-2

Serbian Krunic had a dreadful build-up to the tournament, winning just four games in three matches, but has hit form again in New York and played an excellent first set before Keys turned it around

Another upset saw Cincinnati champion Kiki Bertens beaten 7-6 (7/4) 2-6 7-6 (7/1) by Czech teen Marketa Vondrousova

Bertens, a quarter-finalist at Wimbledon, made herself a dark horse for the title by defeating Halep to win her biggest WTA Tour crown two weeks ago but admitted to feeling mentally and physically tired

She said: 'It was tough for me to keep calm today, to keep my focus all the time, to just stay relaxed, to just play the points and not complain about anything

That was, I think, the key today.' Vondrousova next faces Ukraine's Lesia Tsurenko, who followed up her victory over Wozniacki by beating Katerina Siniakova 6-4 6-0

Naomi Osaka has been the most efficient player over the first three rounds and the 20-year-old Japanese-American blasted her way into the last 16 of grand slam for only the second time with a 6-0 6-0 victory over Aliaksandra Sasnovich

Osaka's last two matches have lasted just 50 minutes each and she has only lost seven games in three rounds

For more infomation >> Breaking News - Angelique Kerber out of US Open after loss to Dominika Cibulkova - Duration: 2:56.

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

Angelique Kerber out of US Open after loss to Dominika Cibulkova - Duration: 5:41.

There will be four different grand slam champions for the second successive season after Wimbledon winner Angelique Kerber joined Simona Halep and Caroline Wozniacki in making an early exit in New York

Kerber was the last women to collect two slam titles in a season, winning the Australian and US Opens in 2016 before a dramatic slump last year

She has been resurgent under Wim Fissette, capped by her brilliant victory over Serena Williams at Wimbledon, and had reached at least the quarter-finals at all of the slams, but here she found Dominika Cibulkova a step too far, the Slovakian winning 3-6 6-3 6-3

RELATED ARTICLES Previous 1 Next 'I am going to be at my 100 per cent for the next match':

'He always comes up with some great shot-making': Roger. Serena Williams is back to her best: Venus hails sister's

'I escaped a very tough situation': Rafael Nadal beats Karen. Share this article Share Kerber said: 'I had my chances, but I couldn't take them, especially in the third set

Also, I was not able actually to play my best tennis in the important moments.'She was going for it, and she hit the balls really good and played the winners when she has to

I think that was the difference about the match today. You have sometimes days where you are trying everything, but it's not really working as you wish

'The defeats for Kerber, Halep and Wozniacki - all on the new Louis Armstrong Stadium - mean defending champion Sloane Stephens is the only one of the top four seeds still left in the tournament

The sixth seed also went on Saturday, with Caroline Garcia beaten 5-7 6-4 7-6 (7/4) by Carla Suarez Navarro

Cibulkova next plays last year's runner-up, Madison Keys, who avoided an upset by fighting from a set down to defeat Aleksandra Krunic 4-6 6-1 6-2

Serbian Krunic had a dreadful build-up to the tournament, winning just four games in three matches, but has hit form again in New York and played an excellent first set before Keys turned it around

Another upset saw Cincinnati champion Kiki Bertens beaten 7-6 (7/4) 2-6 7-6 (7/1) by Czech teen Marketa Vondrousova

Bertens, a quarter-finalist at Wimbledon, made herself a dark horse for the title by defeating Halep to win her biggest WTA Tour crown two weeks ago but admitted to feeling mentally and physically tired

She said: 'It was tough for me to keep calm today, to keep my focus all the time, to just stay relaxed, to just play the points and not complain about anything

That was, I think, the key today.'Vondrousova next faces Ukraine's Lesia Tsurenko, who followed up her victory over Wozniacki by beating Katerina Siniakova 6-4 6-0

Naomi Osaka has been the most efficient player over the first three rounds and the 20-year-old Japanese-American blasted her way into the last 16 of grand slam for only the second time with a 6-0 6-0 victory over Aliaksandra Sasnovich

Osaka's last two matches have lasted just 50 minutes each and she has only lost seven games in three rounds

RELATED ARTICLES Previous 1 Next 'I am going to be at my 100 per cent for the next match':

'He always comes up with some great shot-making': Roger. Serena Williams is back to her best: Venus hails sister's

'I escaped a very tough situation': Rafael Nadal beats Karen. Share this article Share

For more infomation >> Angelique Kerber out of US Open after loss to Dominika Cibulkova - Duration: 5:41.

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

LittleBigPlanet™3 (US) LittleBombPlanet Trailer Unedited - Duration: 1:31.

Friend me on PSN! OnlineID: hLIKEStoDance

For more infomation >> LittleBigPlanet™3 (US) LittleBombPlanet Trailer Unedited - Duration: 1:31.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 The attack happened shortly before midday yesterday.

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

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

Two Victims Of Amsterdam Stabbing Were U.S. Citizens - Duration: 0:27.

For more infomation >> Two Victims Of Amsterdam Stabbing Were U.S. Citizens - Duration: 0:27.

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

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

Get familiar with Toynbee tiles.

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

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

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

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

serve.

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

TOYNBEE IDEA IN MOViE `2001

RESURRECT DEAD ON PLANET JUPITER

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

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

be found all across the United States.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mystery.

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét