The future of 3D printing was bright, until an obscure patent filed in 2007 passed just the other day.

Essentially, the patent is anticipatory of future technology, assuming that a 3D printer will one day become a household item, and that materials for that printer will be equally as common.

Enigmax of TorrentFreak.com reports that the law blocks reproductions of everything from food and shoes, to cars, weapons, even human skin. Enigmax goes into great detail about how affordable printers ruined the copying industry, and how affordable internet and peer sharing ruined the movie and music copy industry.

He also mentions the 3D weapons race and the University of Texas Law student who recently got his 3D printer repossessed, so steps have already been taken to avoid consumer use of 3D printing technology.

Here's the line straight from the patent:

17. The method of claim 1 further comprising: enabling the manufacturing machine to perform if the authorization code meets the one or more predetermined conditions, including manufacturing using one or more of skin, textiles, edible substances, paper, and silicon printing.

“This is an attempt to assert ownership over DRM for 3D printing. It’s ‘Let’s use DRM to stop unauthorized copying of things’,” says Michael Weinberg, a staff lawyer at the non-profit Public Knowledge, who reviewed the patent for Technology Review.

Digital Rights Management, DRM, ensures that people cannot 'pirate' copyrighted technology, or intellectual property. The DRM slant on the patent is what caught the eye of "TorrentFreak," as torrents are the easiest way to peer-share information over the web.

The DRM also means that if amputee soldiers want to print themselves a new silicon arm, or maybe one day just a new, identical biological arm, that the DRM companies can block it under their biological patents.

NOW CHECK OUT: This Smart Suit DARPA Just Spent $2.6 Million To Get >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Just two days after members of the Pakistani Taliban tried to kill 14-year-old Malala Yousafzai, a group of 50 Islamic clerics have issued a 'fatwa' against the assailants and the government has offered $100,000 for their capture. 

Yousafzai wrote a blog for the BBC three years ago which shed light on the Taliban's atrocities against women, and has since been a vocal supporter for women's rights and education.

“Islam does not stop women from acquiring education and by attacking Malala the Taliban have crossed the limits of Islam,” declared the Sunni Ittehad Council, the religious group that issued the fatwa.

The Taliban accuses her of "promoting secularism," and stated that they will try to assassinate her again.

Although the bullet which struck her in the head missed the brain, as of Thursday she remains in critical condition.

SEE ALSO: What's Happening In Northern Mali Right Now Is Downright Barbaric >

Please follow Business Insider on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The Navies of the world have long known how effective the sonar of dolphins and sea lions can be at locating small underwater objects.

The U.S. Navy has a marine mammal program that's been teaching underwater mammals how to locate marine mines, detonate, and even prevent explosions since the 1950s. But this is the first time we've heard of anything like the following story from the Ukraine.

Russia's state-owned news agency Ria Novosti says the Ukrainian navy is "bring[ing] back killer dolphins," by training them to attack swimmers, but that's not the unique part.

An unnamed source told Novosti that the Ukraine is now training 10 dolphins for underwater attacks against swimmers by using knives and guns.

From Ria Novosti:

The killer-dolphins will be trained to attack enemy combat swimmers using special knives or pistols fixed to their heads, the source said. "We are now planning training exercises for counter-combat swimmer tasks in order to defend ships in port and on raids," he said.

The Navy actively used underwater mammals in Vietnam and to support Bahrain missions in 1986 and points out the U.S. has given 32 Dicken Medals in the course of its history honoring animals in war.

Now: See why all US aircraft carriers have a Ouija board >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

On Tuesday, Russia and Iraq agreed on a $4.2 billion arms deal, making Russia the second-largest arms dealer to the Middle Eastern nation behind the United States.

Thirty years ago, the decision would have been seen in the United States as a grave defeat, a Russian move in the zero-sum, ideological battle for spheres of influence that defined the Cold War. Even today, Russia seen by many a major world influence and geopolitical counterweight to the United States, including Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

But what's the modern reality?

The U.S. response to the Iraq deal seems relatively aloof at its most negative, and implicitly encouraging at its most positive. 

Here's what the State Department had to say at Tuesday's press briefing:

QUESTION:  I wonder if you could comment on the military sale deal with – between Iraq and Russia. Because last week I asked about the – what kind of sales are in the pipeline and why they are taking so long. I’m talking about the FMF – the military sales to Iraq program, the American military sale. But it seems that they are taking a step ahead and concluding a deal with Russia.

[State Department Spokesperson Victoria] Nuland: Well, first of all, with regard to U.S.-Iraqi military support, Iraq overall has initiated some 467 foreign military sales cases with the United States. If all of these go forward, it will be worth over $12.3 billion, so obviously our own military support relationship with Iraq is very broad and very deep.

The U.S. embassy in Iraq has thrown its support behind, "efforts to purchase equipment to meet [Iraq's] legitimate defense needs." However, the aforementioned quote was in reference to U.S. arms sales.

When asked about the agreement by Business Insider Deputy Director of Russian and Eurasian Affairs at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Matthew Rojansky said he wasn't initially surprised, classifying Russia's strategy towards the Middle East "opportunistic, at best:"

"I think Putin himself is realistic — he’s a businessman, first and foremost. And I regard him much more as a Russian CEO than a soviet-style party leader."

He added (emphasis is ours):

"[Putin's] interest in spheres of influence, if you use that term, is much closer to home — it’s about the near-abroad and the former Soviet countries that are on Russia’s borders. It’s very much not about playing geopolitical chess in the Middle East. He sees that as a losing proposition."

That position appears to extent towards other Middle Eastern nations too. With regards to Syria, Russia's stance towards the Assad regime is not as unwavering as it seems. 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov noted in March:

"We are not defending Assad or his family or his clan or even his regime, which certainly needs to be reformed. Rather we are defending a philosophy of international relations and the Syrian people’s right to solve their own problems. Russia is ready to mediate the peace process. We support national dialogue and a diplomatic solution."

It's not that Russia is standing in the way of the United States — it is that Russia is in some ways more careful about picking sides with the United States.

"What they’ve done with Assad," according to Rojansky, "is they’ve picked a clear red line. But even that line may waver and change as opportunities arise — it’s very opportunistic I think is the key."

And Iran?

Well, Russia has an interest in keeping the quarrel going between the United States and Iran. The Carnegie Endowment’s Karim Sadjadpour notes that the tension between the two states "is expedient for Russia in that it inhibits Iran, which has the second-largest reserves of natural gas after Russia, from competing in European gas markets," even if they privately fear Iran's nuclear ambitions. 

Iranian public opinion of Russia is not as overwhelming as one might think in light of the strategic cooperation between the two states. During the 2009 uprisings in Tehran, Friday prayer leaders were encouraging people to chant "Death to America; death to Israel."

Their response?

"Death to China, death to Russia."

SEE ALSO: This Plane Incident Changes Everything Between Turkey And Russia >

Please follow Business Insider on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Prince Harry has taken fire from the Taliban multiple times during his current tour in Afghanistan, a military source told Richard White of The Sun.

Capt. Harry Wales, 28, has been on operational duty in the Helmand Province for more than a month as an attack helicopter co-pilot and gunner responsible for firing the Apache's wing-mounted aerial rockets, Hellfire laser-guided missiles and 30mm machine gun.

Harry is part of a four-man team on standby 24 hours a day to take to the air and either destroy the enemy or provide cover for other aircraft.

White notes that the Apache's "four-blade, twin-engine attack chopper’s Hellfire rockets can wipe out an area — including armour — the size of eight football pitches."

From The Sun:

“He can be sat in a deckchair for hours then scrambled immediately," the military source said. "When in the air his role is diverse. This is no game and Harry is on the frontline of a terrifying war. ... He’s in the thick of it and is one of the lads ... and if people think flying an Apache in a war zone is privileged child’s play they’re on another planet.”

In May 2007 Harry was prevented from beginning a six-month deployment in Iraq because the British military deemed the risks to his safety were too great.

In 2008 Harry served in Helmand for 10 weeks as an air traffic controller, but his deployment was cut short after it was made public. 

He is currently one of 100 members of the 662 Squadron, 3 Regiment Army Air Corps stationed at Camp Bastion, which was attacked by insurgents last month.

SEE ALSO: This Massive Helicopter Has Handled US Air Drops For 50 Years >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The Marine Corps sent two female Lieutenants to Marine Corps Infantry Officers Course in Quantico on Sept. 24 for the first time ever.

Click here to see what they face >

These women are in for quite a challenge, as none of the training has been changed, or altered — In enlisted boot camp, as well as in the fleet Marine Corps, women have different physical fitness standards than men.

So we talked a few Marine Corps Infantry Officers to get a feel for what these Marines are in for. The consensus was, not so much that they didn't want females fighting beside them — more often than not, we heard, "as long as they don't change the training, more power to them" — but that the course was "one of the most rigorous the Marine Corps has to offer."

Finally, the Marine Corps Training And Education Command has decided that these two ladies are essentially just a "test." If they pass, the will not earn the Infantry Officer designation.

They're going through the training for no other reason than to do it, to prove what they're made of.

The first challenge is breaking through into a man's world

Women have never served in an infantry training unit.

The Marines world is totally dominated by men. Yes, women have a foot in the door, but the first obstacle they have is to break through socially with the men.

"Shoot, move, communicate," as Marines say. Communication is key.

The obstacles will not be altered in any way

In enlisted boot camp, most of the obstacles are different for women — bars are a little lower, walls a little shorter.

The female IOC Marines will have to surmount the exact same obstacles as the men.

Everyone will go through the early morning indoctrination test

"They drop you off in the woods, zero five in the morning, hand you a envelope, and say 'Go!" One officer tells me.

This is the indoctrination test.

Day 2, initial test, just to see if you have what it takes to do the training. The test consists of about 15 to 20 miles of land navigation, carrying a rifle and military "deuce gear," which is what carries ammunition and water.

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

When the Russian submarine K-141 Kursk slipped into the Barents Sea on a fine August day over a decade ago, its crew were no doubt in high spirits.

The 118 men were aboard the largest nuclear attack submarine ever built, a jewel of Russia's Northern Fleet, and they were about to show what it could do under torpedo firing exercises against an old battlecruiser.

But that trip went terribly awry, and the U.S. got to work making sure nothing similar could happen in America's fleet.

While one of the Kursk's gunners was loading a round in the tube, it's believed salt water came in contact with the torpedo's hydrogen peroxide propellant causing an explosion that sent the Kursk to the bottom of the sea.

Despite detonations that registered well into the Richter scale, many crew sat on the sea floor for days before  they finally died.

The Kursk sat only in about 300 feet of water, but it's a depth impossible for a man to rise from and survive without mechanical assistance — at the time nothing was available to send.

For years the Kremlin pretended the men died swiftly, but they did not; and today the U.S. Navy has something in its fleet to ensure a tragedy like the Kursk's never happens again.

Should a Disabled Submarine (DISSUB) message ever sound out in the world, the Navy today will send the Submarine Rescue Diving and Re-compression System (SRDRS) to the rescue.

The Oceaneering Technologies submersible includes four separate parts, weighs just under 200 tons and can be flown from San Diego to anywhere in the world within 72 hours.

When that call comes in the SRDRS will sail out over the downed sub and drop a rescue module that will attach itself to the subs escape hatch. Up to 155 submariners can then crawl into the safety of the rescue pod and be rushed to the surface.

The pod carries a crew, but is actually remote controlled and through a sophisticated relay of pressurized, and de-pressurizing chambers; the system enables rescuers to reach depths of 2,000 feet and shuttle disabled crew to the surface 16 at a time.

This new system replaced a design around since 1970 that had to be strapped to another submarine and could carry only 24 passengers at once. Called the Mystic, that submersible could descend to 5,000 feet but was never called on to perform a rescue.

So, while the U.S. may never need to rescue 150 men on the sea floor, there's no doubt the SRDRS is a huge comfort to the men and women in today's submarine fleet. 

Now: See why all US aircraft carriers have a Ouija board > 

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

It was early, a good friend was calling and the phone was ringing.

I hate the phone; anyone who knows me, knows this. It is a strange irrationality of mine, but my level of discomfort turns to panic as each ring passes.

Sometimes I flip a switch inside and pick it up, other times step outside myself, watch it play through to the end — then take a moment to recover.

I hate the phone because I was a platoon radio operator during the battle of Fallujah, when I was nineteen, and every time somebody called me out there it was a serious fucking emergency.

I had to monitor the net (field communication network) for unit reports on friendly movement so that my platoon did not walk into another’s gun fire.

One time I had told a tank that it would be clear to fire on a building, shortly after I watched a dozen Marines from another platoon take cover behind the same building, out of sight of the tank. The tank’s turret shifted and pointed toward the building.

When there are too many people talking on a radio channel, the net gets tied up and I have to wait for a person to stop talking before I can talk to them. I frantically held down the button to my handset repeating over and over, more panicked and more panicked, “Cease fire, cease fire, cease fire!” When I let go of the button I could hear the tank power down with a sound like a vacuum cleaner and my handset answered back, “Roger, cease fire.” 

Other times I would need the radio to call for a medical evacuation of friends who had been shot or killed or hit by explosives.

Most days my ear was stuck to my handset for eighteen hours and nothing special but during the times that nothing happened a person could not help but to wonder what the next horrible phone call might be.

When I turn my knob to our battalion channel sometimes the breaking news of the day is a friend from another company has just been killed; or I am sleepy on hour seventeen but keep nodding to the sound of empty radio static that makes a noise like television snow while filled with a cold panic that if I go to sleep, my friends would die because of me.

Sometimes my friend Nate Douglass would call my apartment late at night and I would not pick up. I would want to cry for fear, but did not feel well enough to help someone who needed real help. I would take a moment to recover and carry on with the endless web surfing. He just wanted to talk, so did I, but war is a bitch and we both know it. 

One time I picked up the phone for a number I did not recognize and it was Luis Munoz, our old point man.

He had moved back to Mexico after the service and was calling to tell me about the violence he was witnessing, he said it was worse than Fallujah and he had a child to raise. He had been shot through the leg in Fallujah so bad that he was told he would never walk again.

When we reunited Luis was in physical therapy walking with a cane in his early twenties, by the time he was discharged from the Marines as a wounded warrior he was jogging.

Rich Casares had been hit by an enemy hand grenade in Fallujah, which had damaged one of his eyes. The doctors put an air bubble behind it; I had to write him because he was in a Texas Prison, when he wrote me he would ask for a picture of Fallujah that looked really good so he could have it tattooed across his back.

Paul Johnson has a kid and soon will Donald Blais, they live in Connecticut today and during the battle rushed into a burning house to ferry the bodies of their wounded friends, without being ordered to.

One early morning in my dark apartment I picked up the phone for Nate Douglass who had also been hit by an enemy hand grenade.

We had been best friends in Fallujah.

We talked about our struggles coming home and then we talked about the day he'd been hit by the hand grenade. He would reference the morning and I would retort with my perspective of the same thing.

When we got to the operation he would talk about what he saw inside a house while I would tell him what I saw outside of that house. I realized that the story flowed naturally and that if I had the other members of our platoon who were there that day I was sure that they could reconstruct the story with even more depth.

I told Douglass that night that I had an idea for a documentary that would tell a story of real life heroism and struggle that might answer questions for outsiders and those just returning from their story.

Check out Garrett's website and how to see his documentary here >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Negahdar Jamali is an Iranian filmmaker who has for the past 35 years made American-inspired westerns complete with cowboys and Indians in the deserts surrounding the city of Shiraz.

Poor and illiterate, Jamali has nevertheless dedicated his whole life to making more than 50 movies, often in the face of pressure to give up his dream from family and from the society surrounding him.

"I had always wished to be an actor," said Jamali. "However no director would give me a chance. So I decided to become a director to make my own western movies and after a while I fell in love with directing."

He funds the films through working, either wrecking cars at an auto lot with a sledgehammer or by selling costume jewelery from a blanket on the ground.

Then he recruits actors from the streets of Shiraz, convincing local market stall holders to donate feathers -- sometimes plucked from live chickens -- so he can make the Indian costumes that add a degree of authenticity to his decidedly low budget, B-grade productions.

Jamali's story has been told in the documentary "My Name Is Negahdar Jamali And I Make Westerns", which this week was given its world premiere at the Busan International Film Festival in South Korea.

"I wish when audiences see my real life in this documentary, they will see me as a good director who can make powerful westerns," said Jamali in an email to AFP from Shiraz.

"I hope producers who watch the movie come to me asking me to make films for them."

Jamali, aged in his 60s, chose not to attend the film festival due to the distance and worries about cultural differences he might face. The documentary was represented at Busan by its director Kamran Heidari.

"I found him an inspiration," said Heidari of Jamali. "There is a level of dedication and professionalism in his work that you cannot find in mainstream cinema."

At one stage in the film, Jamali says he has been obsessed with westerns since he was a boy, counting the late, great director John Ford ("The Searchers", "Stagecoach") as an idol.

Ford's films -- and his own -- are about men who try to "remove the blanket of evil from the land," said Jamali.

While "My Name is Negahdar..." might begin as an oddity it soon evolves into a moving tribute to a man who will let nothing separate him from his art.

"I almost fell into the trap of making a social documentary but then I realised that with this film cinema is the only thing that matters," said Heidari.

"It is about a man and his love for cinema and for making cinema. His love for cinema is just so pure. He doesn't want to make money out of them, he just wants to make these films and he puts everything he has into it," he said.

"It's inspiring and a lot more honest to just tell his story."

While making a production called "The Great Revenge", Jamali faces mounting bills at home, plus the ire of his wife and young son, and many in the local community who think he should be putting his family's concerns first.

But he labours on, scraping together just enough money to pay his actors and for film stock. He eventually sees the production to its end and places handmade posters around town next to fading images of Iran's religious leaders.

When the film premiered on a wall in a local square, an audience of around 20 gathered on carpets in the dirt.

"He makes copies of his films and then hands them out in the community," said Heidari.

"It is a community effort. Everyone wants him to succeed and there is more and more recognition for what he is doing."

Far from trying to stop Jamali's work -- which might be expected given its American nature and recent animosity between the two nations -- the local authorities in Shiraz have begun to recognise Jamali's contribution to the local community.

The free DVDs, screenings, and the work he gives to his crew of local "actors" have led to the director being handed some small awards, Heidari said.

The fact that the director was illiterate only became apparent halfway through the shooting of the documentary.

"He kept that hidden from us," said Heidari. "He has papers with him to make it look like he is reading from a script but they are just drawings, like that of a child.

"But part of his great skill is his ability to improvise as the film is being made."

"The Great Revenge" seems typical of the Jamali oeuvre -- Indians attack, cowboys right the perceived wrong. But there is an unbridled joy in its simple delivery.

"His enthusiasm for cinema is infectious," said Heidari, who chose to submit the film to Busan on the advice of respected Iranian director Abbas Kiarostami ("The Wind Will Carry Us").

"Mr Kiarostami thought Busan would be a great place to introduce Jamali to the world."

Heidari said he hopes other festivals around the world will pick up his documentary and said he had plans to help Jamali box up his films into a DVD collection, with the documentary included as part of the package.

Crucially, Heidari wanted to bring the filmmaker some attention -- something Jamali was happy to accept.

"At first I thought I would be prepared to act in this documentary like my other western movies that I had acted in before," he said.

"But afterwards I realised my life is not a movie role. I feel satisfied in the end that people will see this film, and see my real life."

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

*Editor: Some mild coarse language

“Drink water, drive on.” I think anyone who’s spent any time in the military has heard that expression or something similar.

There’s no doubt that in the military we have a tough mindset. If it ain’t broke or gushing blood, take some Ibuprofen and get moving!

That’s great when you’re dealing with a genuine malingerer or someone who’s just being a bitch but what about someone who’s hurt in a way that you or I can’t see?

That mindset can, too often, lead us to question the sincerity of someone who legitimately has problems that need to be addressed before they progress too far.

The media, of course, has no issues making a diagnosis and passing judgment.

Any time a veteran or a soldier twists off it’s automatically PTSD. After all, the media’s image of a psychotic killer is far more dramatic than the possibility that maybe the person in question was just a shit bag and a criminal. Which one gets better ratings?

That’s not to say that every case of a soldier committing a crime or committing suicide wasn’t caused in some way by PTSD, but what about the thousands upon thousands of soldiers and veterans out there who have PTSD or combat stress and never do anything bad to themselves or others? We veterans, the military, and the media need to stop jumping to conclusions and making assumptions.

I was guilty of an assumption a few weeks ago. I ran across a book, Unspoken Abandonment, by Bryan Wood. It was about some of the mental issues that soldiers can come back from war with. His experiences in Afghanistan were different from mine in Iraq and I ended up questioning if he had ever been there. In the end it turned out I was probably wrong and some of the perceived discrepancies were for literary purposes only. I gave the book five stars in the end, and kicked myself for committing the very offense I’ve so often thought the rest of the Army was often guilty of.

Most importantly, after swallowing my foot, the book got me thinking. Anyone who has gone to war has probably been through something that human beings aren’t meant to go through. It might seem minor compared to losing a limb or watching a friend die in your arms, but you don’t have to get blown up and knocked out or shoot someone at point blank range to experience something that 99% of the population will not. And, if it’s not normal for a human being to experience, then who are we (or the Army, or the VA) to say that the person enduring that should have a “normal” soldiers reaction and simply shrug and move on?

I’m not advocating for soldiers to thrown down a “stress card” and sit down on the job, saying they have combat fatigue and they need two weeks R&R any time they get a little tired and stressed out. When the shit hits the fan, or even if there is simply a mission to be done, you have to drink water and drive on. That’s what the oath we took and the uniform we wear means. But, when all is said and done, the simple check the box evaluation and RTD isn’t always the right answer. The mindset of looking for reasons not to treat a soldier or veteran so they can be sent back to wherever they came from, “cleared” because they didn’t go through something as bad as losing a limb, or a have a friend die right in front of them, is bullshit.

Dave Grossman broke down the mentality of the military well with his analogy of wolves, sheep, and sheepdogs. Let’s take that a step further though. If most of the population isn’t capable of violence, then isn’t it possible that most of the population is also not capable of handling most of the things experienced in war? Those of us who willingly put on a uniform and go into harms way are a different group than the rest of the population, but we are still only human. Is it too far of a stretch to say that things that would traumatize a civilian might just leave us with scars too?

Not everyone who goes to war will get PTSD. I’m not even sure that most of the people who go to war will. When I interviewed Chris Kyle regarding his book, he gave me his opinion that most soldiers will experience some sort of combat stress though. I think that’s very true. My own experiences in Iraq were, by the Army standard I guess, mild. Yes I got shot at and I saw dead people. I did have to shoot a few times and I got blown up once by a small IED (it didn’t even really knock me out). I lost friends but thankfully never in front of me. I got stressed out, hurt, hot and dehydrated. 90% or greater of the soldiers who were over there went through some of the same things, and some went through far worse.

There were a few nightmares that went away in time, and a few flashbacks that still happen now and again if everything is right. I went for a run at night a few years ago and the moonlight combined with the Texas breeze and the smell of dust all combined just right to where it felt like I was in Iraq, even though I knew I wasn’t. Is that PTSD? No. Significant events can imprint themselves in our minds and familiarity can trigger parts of those memories I think. It was nothing more than that.

But, that was my experience with the war and combat stress. My buddy is not me, and the next veteran is not him. A friend of mine went through one of the same shooting incidents that I did and he handled it differently than me. I talked about it to anyone who would listen until I’m sure they were all annoyed as hell. He didn’t. He bottled it up and now the psychiatrist just throws pills at him in handfuls (though he won’t take all of them and is trying to find healthier ways to cope). Both of us are human though, and pulling the trigger on another human being isn’t natural, so having some sort of adverse reaction to such an experience is natural. To my friend’s credit he fights on, trying to find the healthiest way to cope and even gave me permission to mention him in this article.

I think that this is the most important point that the military and the VA need to grasp. Most everything in war is not natural so when a soldier has a negative reaction, that is actually a natural reaction to a negative thing. When we put on the uniform, contrary to what some activists might think, we don’t give up our humanity. We aren’t permitted to commit war crimes simply because we are at war, even though we have to endure stress and hardships and killing. There is nothing that says we aren’t permitted to still be human though.

As sheepdogs we are capable of great violence, but we are also capable of empathy and sorrow and every other human emotion too. We are not the savage wolf that is capable of violence but incapable of empathy for their fellow man. Empathy is the tether that keeps us tied to our humanity in inhumane situations, and anyone who retains their humanity through war will probably have some sort of scars from it. They will not always match the perceived size of the injury because every mind is different and every person has different coping methods. I hope that one day the military and the VA will fully grasp that and extend more of a helping hand to those scarred by war.

NOW SEE: This Is What Happens When 'Red Air' Strands Marines In Taliban Territory >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

I’ve always said that every Iraq/ Afghanistan experience can be different.

You can spend the entire deployment working on a  large camp in an office. Or you could be “outside the wire” intermixing with the public/conducting missions/ engaging the enemy in combat for the entire deployment.

I’ve had both types of deployments.

They both suck. Check out what they are doing below to build an outpost. I’ve done some of this myself!

I’ve personally never deployed to large camps like Victory/ Anaconda (Iraq) or Bagram/ Kandahar (Afghanistan). I prefer smaller intimate camps. (not that I had a say in the matter) Plus there are less things to spend your money on if there is no Coffee Bean, post exchange filled with tempting treats or a pizza parlor (Kandahar). As a leader, a smaller camp provides you more control over your troops. I like that.

But that doesn’t mean that living on these larger camps aren’t dangerous for our troops.

Large camps/ bases are a softer/ easier target for the enemy to attack. You can also be drummed into a false sense of security by your daily routine.  That is until that rocket comes crashing down on your hooch. Hopefully you were at chow when this occurred. There are just more creature comforts for the troops at these large installations. Yes, running showers are a creature comfort! I didn’t shower for 39 days when we invaded Iraq. I took sponge bathing to a whole new level! I don’t even want to get started about no air condition in Iraq in the spring/ summer!

Ha! Whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. Remember our boys in the Ardennes forest during World War II? (Check out Steve Ambrose’s WWII book or watch Band of Brothers). The hardships our troops go through today pales in comparison to those days!

But the most difficult hardship that all service members face while deployed spans all generations. We miss our loved ones and life back in the states. We think about it constantly and dream of returning home. Not being with our loved ones is the worst.

This isn’t my story but I think it speaks to the great disparity in a service members experience while deployed. I figured you wouldn’t want to see picture of huge dinning facilities of coffee shops. So I included some great video and picture of some hard living while deployed.

Read Recommended Story by Sgt. Daniel Schroeder >

NOW SEE: This Is What Happens When 'Red Air' Strands marines In Taliban Territory >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

In 2010 Egypt discussed taking military action in cooperation with Sudan against Ethiopia to protect their stake in Nile River, according to internal emails from the U.S. private-security firm Stratfor.

Egypt and Sudan get 90 percent of the river’s water under colonial-era accords while upstream countries including Uganda, Rwanda, Tanzania, Kenya and Ethiopia have been clamoring for a new deal during more than a decade of talks.

The Nile flows south to north, making it one of only a handful of rivers in the world to do so and one of only two in Africa.

So, rather than Cairo sitting at the mouth of the massive water supply, it sits dead last—subject to all the whims and fancies of each upstream nation. With several factional governments upstream and the premium on fresh water, diplomacy only goes so far.

A dispatch from May 26, 2010, that cited information from a Egyptian diplomatic source points to the country's frustration:

Sudanese president Umar al-Bashir has agreed to allow the Egyptians to build an a small airbase in Kusti to accommodate Egyptian commandos who might be sent to Ethiopia to destroy water facilities on the Blue Nile... It will be their option if everything else fails

The Blue Nile, which begins in Ethiopia, contributes about 85 percent of the flow that passes through Egypt to the Mediterranean.

Ethiopia became an even bigger threat a month after the Egyptian Revolution toppled President Hosni Mubarak in February 2011 when they announced new details about the construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam.

In April of this year Bradley Hope of the The National reported that construction had begun and that the massive project "could destabilize Egypt in a way that would make the last year of political upheaval look minuscule."

"It would lead to political, economic and social instability,"  Mohamed Nasr El Din Allam, Egypt's minister of water and irrigation until early last year, told Hope. "Millions of people would go hungry. There would be water shortages everywhere. It's huge."

Ethiopia is also currently struggling to fund the dam, which would need foreign aid to be completed. Egypt and Sudan have lobbied foreign donors to refrain from funding the project while they try to find a diplomatic solution to the increasingly dire water situation.

A dispatch from June 1, 2010, that cited a "high-level Egyptian security/intel source, in regular direct contact with Mubarak and [then-intelligence head Omar] Suleiman" said:

The only country that is not cooperating is Ethiopia. We are continuing to talk to them, using the diplomatic approach. Yes, we are discussing military cooperation with Sudan. ... If it comes to a crisis, we will send a jet to bomb the dam and come back in one day, simple as that. Or we can send our special forces in to block/sabotage the dam... Look back to an operation Egypt did in the mid-late 1970s, i think 1976, when Ethiopia was trying to build a large dam. We blew up the equipment while it was traveling by sea to Ethiopia.

A dispatch from July 29, 2010, that cited the Egyptian ambassador to Lebanon said that Egypt and leaders of the soon-to-be independent southern region of Sudan "agreed on developing strategic relations between their two countries," including Egypt training the South Sudan military, and noted that "the horizons for Egyptian-southern Sudanese cooperation are limitless since the south needs everything."

In 1979 Anwar Sadat, Egypt’s second president, said: “The only matter that could take Egypt to war again is water."

The government of current Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi described the Stratfor emails as hearsay “designed to disturb Egyptian-Ethiopian relations.”

WikiLeaks has published 53,860 out of what it says is a cache of 5 million internal Stratfor emails (dated between July 2004 and December 2011) obtained by the hacker collective Anonymous around Christmas. Check out our coverage here.

SEE ALSO: The Global Water Crisis Will Shake Humanity To Its Core [Charts] >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

In 1985, two young British climbers, Joe Simpson and Simon Yates, became the first to ascend the west face of Siula Grande, a 21,000-foot peak in the Peruvian Andes.

What happened next has become the stuff of mountaineering legend.

The saga of the five days that followed is one of the most remarkable and inspiring survival stories ever. It's also an extraordinary example of self-reliance, decision-making under extreme duress, and force of will.

One of the climbers, Joe Simpson, wrote a book about the experience called Touching The Void. In 2003, the story was made into a docu-drama directed by Kevin Macdonald. The movie was narrated by Simpson and Yates, with actors re-enacting the events in Peru and the Alps.

Both the book and movie are extraordinary.

Using still shots from the movie, I've told a very abridged version of the story below. If you don't like spoilers, you can buy the book or movie here, or watch the movie on Netflix.

The saga began with a two-day hike from the nearest road.

The climbers, Joe Simpson and Simon Yates, established a camp about 4-5 miles from Siula Grande.

DAY ONE: The route to the mountain passed a glacial lake, followed by a long hike up a valley and the glacier itself.

Please follow Business Insider on Twitter and Facebook.

My brother at arms called me the other day to shoot the breeze. After a few minutes he says to me:

"So King, tell me more about this breathing stuff."

"Of course, what's up?"

" I don't know man, couple of weeks ago I started having these dreams, crazy ass dreams and I'm getting nervous about falling asleep." (He is 4 months back from tour in Afghanistan, his second tour. His first was with me in Iraq)

One of my favorite things about this particular battle buddy of mine is that he is hands down one of the coolest dudes I know. I love this guy like family so when he asked me about mindfulness I knew he was dealing with something new and menacing.

To hear him describe the dreams he was having you would think he was simply talking about the weather.

But after I heard what he had to say I knew his dreams had taken him over the edge.

Imagine a dream only a demon would love, imagine a mindset full of confusion, doubt and anger ... imagine madness, and you will get an idea of what certain spans of time are like for guys and gals transitioning from traumatic experiences.

Now understand this because this is a very important point--this type of experience, at first, is not constant. It happens here and there.

I think this reality is part of the reason I waited so long to address the problem. What's one meltdown or one bad dream a month? 

The reason you wanna deal with issues like this sooner rather than later is because these experiences can create dread, fear and anxiety.

I dreaded going to bed because I was afraid that I wouldn't fall asleep. At times this got really bad, which contributed to the frequency of these maddening episodes.

Mindfulness helped me fill some of the time between these experiences with more peaceful states. This helped me break up the fear, dread and anxiety cycle.

To create these peaceful states, I practiced bringing my mind back to my breath a little every day.

As I practiced bringing my mind back from distractions, I began to have a relationship with my mind.

Some days I could really influence my mind and stay focused; other days, not so much.

I learned that staying one way or the other was not the point. The point was the process of working with my mind in the first place.

Combat troopers have dealt with and seen some hairy shit. Our training is designed to help us ignore what we see and Charlie Mike (Continue Mission).

The main problem is that after the mission is over our minds begin to pull this stuff out to try to deal with them.

What I told my buddy was that he should use mindful breathing techniques to begin working with his mind in a safe environment. 

I emailed him one of the breathing exercises they gave me at the DC Veterans Affairs and told him to practice for 5 minutes a day.

The last point I want to make is very, very important. I told my buddy this before we got off the phone: there is nothing wrong with you.

If you are having dreams like my buddy, or meltdowns like me, understand that you are experiencing a natural reaction to combat. There is absolutely nothing wrong with you. That said, you do need to address the issue.

Think of it like doing a gear-check on your mind. 

We weren't trained to monitor the functionality and operability of our gear daily for nothing, Hooah!

This post was guided by the 30th stanza of the Art of Peace, a book written by Morihei Ueshiba , the founder and creator of the Martial Art, Aikido.

NOW SEE: This Is What Happens When 'Red Air' Strands Marines In Taliban Territory >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Far from being just a political storm in the Caribbean, the Cuban missile crisis came dangerously close to triggering a nuclear war between two superpowers, the US and the Soviet Union – both nations having stockpiled enough missiles that a conflict between them would have destroyed much of the planet.

The deadly standoff came about mainly because Cuba, under Fidel Castro, had lurched towards communism in 1959. Desperate to beat back the 'cancer' of socialism from its doorstep, the US aided a military task force to overthrow Castro, which landed south of Havana at the Bay of Pigs in 1961.

The rebels were easily put down by a well-armed Cuban army that had strong links with the Soviet Union.

Knowing that the Soviets were eager to prop up fellow communist regimes, the US remained watchful of the Kremlin's relationship with Castro. In 1962, tensions grew as American spy planes provided evidence that Soviet missiles were being shipped to Cuba. Knowing that Soviet ballistic missiles on Cuban soil were capable of striking the US's eastern seaboard within a few minutes of being launched, President John F Kennedy warned US citizens they might once again have to pay "the price for freedom", as conflict, this time with the Soviet Union, could not be ruled out.

Washington's hawkish stance did not receive the backing from her allies that Kennedy had hoped for, though support eventually came, notable from the British government.

Kennedy pulled back from his initial plan to invade Cuba, deciding instead to deploy US navy ships, including aircraft carriers, to enforce a "quarantine", or blockade, on Cuba to prevent more "offensive weapons" being shipped in. Kennedy also called upon his Soviet counterpart, Nikita Khrushchev, to "halt and eliminate this clandestine, reckless, and provocative threat to world peace".

In an unbearably tense showdown, a flotilla of Soviet ships, which were already on their way to Cuba, kept their course despite stern warnings from the US. As the world held its breath, the Soviet ships edged ever closer to their destination only to receive instructions from Moscow to turn back, so averting a confrontation with the US.

Days later, the deadly game of nuclear brinkmanship between the two nations ended, Khrushchev sent Kennedy a message that Soviet missiles would be taken back. In return, Kennedy committed the US never to invade Cuba.

Kennedy also secretly promised to withdraw US nuclear-armed missiles located in Turkey.

Cuba's Fidel Castro was left frustrated by the Soviets' retreat but realized he was effectively excluded from the negotiations.

With a catastrophic war averted, a hotline between the US and Soviet Union was set up to prevent such a crisis happening again.

This article originally appeared on guardian.co.uk

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Syria banned Turkish passenger flights from its airspace from Sunday in a retaliatory move after Turkey confiscated a cargo of what Russia said was radar equipment en route from Moscow to Damascus last week.

The reprisal, just weeks before the annual hajj when thousands of Turkish pilgrims head to the Muslim holy places in Saudi Arabia on a route that would normally take them through Syrian airspace, came despite a flurry of diplomacy on Saturday intended to calm soaring tensions between the neighbours.

Syria accuses Turkey of channeling arms from Gulf Arab states to rebels fighting its troops, who have been under mounting pressure across large swathes of the north, including second city Aleppo.

The flight ban went into force from midnight (2100 GMT Saturday) "in accordance with the principle of reciprocity", SANA state news agency said, although Turkey has said its airspace remains open to Syrian civilian flights.

Since last Wednesday, Turkey had warned its airlines to avoid Syrian airspace for fear of retaliation for that day's interception of the Syrian Air flight by Turkish jets on the allegation it was carrying military equipment.

The United States backed its NATO ally's confiscation of what Russia said was radar spare parts, saying they constituted "serious military equipment".

Russia, traditional ally of President Bashar al-Assad's regime, insisted the cargo broke no international rules.

Turkey has taken an increasingly strident line towards its southern neighbour since a shell fired from the Syrian side of the border killed five of its nationals on October 3.

It has since repeatedly retaliated for cross-border fire, prompting growing UN concern and a flurry of diplomatic contacts.

After talks with his German counterpart Guido Westerwelle on Saturday, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu reiterated that Ankara would not tolerate any further border incidents.

"We will hit back without hesitation if we believe Turkey's national security is in danger," he said.

Westerwelle renewed Germany's support for its NATO ally while at the same time appealing for restraint. "We are on Turkey's side but we also call on Turkey to show moderation," he said.

Peace envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, a veteran Algerian diplomat who is the envoy of the United Nations and the Arab League, headed to Iran, the Syria government's closest ally, after holding talks in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the leading backers of the opposition.

Brahimi is on his second tour of the region after taking up his post at the beginning of September, replacing former UN chief Kofi Annan who quit complaining that he had not received sufficient support from the major powers to see through his abortive April peace plan.

On the ground, fierce fighting raged between the army and rebel fighters on the main highway between Damascus and Aleppo.

The rebels' capture of the strategic crossroads town of Maaret al-Numan last Tuesday has threatened the army's ability to reinforce its beleaguered troops in the northern metropolis.

One rebel fighter was killed and 18 wounded as fighting raged for a second day around the nearby Wadi Daif base, which remains in government hands, the Syrian Observatory for Human Right said.

Air strikes targeted the rebels in the village of Marshurin and in Hish in the same region, the Britain-based watchdog added.

The clashes came after fierce fighting in the heart of Aleppo on Saturday which saw rebels attack army positions inside the city's landmark Umayyad Mosque for the second time in a week.

The commercial capital has been the key battleground of the 19-month conflict since mid-July.

Its ancient covered market or souk has also been damaged in the fighting as rebels and troops have exchanged mortar and grenade fire in the UNESCO-listed Old City.

Rebels entered the mosque complex by planting an explosive device at the southern entrance,

Nationwide at least 181 people were killed on Saturday -- 71 civilians, 63 soldiers and 47 rebels, according to the Observatory's figures.

More than 33,000 people have now been killed since the uprising against Assad's rule erupted in March last year, the watchdog says.

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's defense minister says Hezbollah's launch of a drone into Israeli airspace earlier this week proves Iranian military capabilities.

The Sunday statement by Gen. Ahmad Vahidi on Iranian state television came several days after the Lebanese militant group's leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah claimed responsibility for the launch and said the aircraft was made in Iran.

Israeli warplanes shot down the unmanned plane, but the infiltration marked a rare breach of Israel's tightly guarded airspace.

"Great job by Hezbollah," Gen. Vahidi said. He said Hezbollah had the right to launch the drone since Israeli warplanes routinely violate Lebanon's airspace.

Nasrallah warned Thursday that it would not be the last such operation by the group.

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Austrian skydiver Felix Baumgartner tries again today to become the first skydiver to break the speed of sound, despite earlier delays due to strong winds.

You can watch the live feed at the Red Bull Stratos website or click play on the video below to watch it here. Live updates below. 

Please follow Science on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Chuck Yeager became the first man to break the speed of the sound in a rocket plane on Oct. 14, 1947.

Exactly 65 years later, Felix Baumgartner will try to become the first skydiver to break the speed of sound.

When asked how he felt about blasting through the sound barrier on the same day as the U.S. Air Force Captain, Baumgartner responded on the Red Bull Stratos blog:

In 65 years, it goes to show there are still challenges to overcome and you should never lose sight of trying to achieve them. I would be proud to be a part of that group of explorers.

Yeager flew 662 miles per hour to break the speed of sound at 40,000 feet (the speed of sound varies with temperature).

Baumgartner will jump from an altitude of 120,000 feet hoping to break the speed of sound when he pushes past 690 mph. That should happen within about 40 seconds of the jump.  

Watch Yeager make history below: 

SEE ALSO: How To Jump From 23 Miles About Earth And Survive >

Please follow Science on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The Syrian regime stands accused once again of using controversial clusterbombs in its fight against rebel forces.

Cluster bombs are not only effective at devastating troops across a patch of battlefield, they're also handy at rendering land useless to the enemy.

They do this by scattering tiny bombs atop the surface of the earth. Whether targeting people, or equipment, the result can be the same.

In this case, the patch of earth is largely a highway running through Maarat al-Numan, and the people are residents of Taftanaz and Tamane`a along with insurgents using the road.

The highway is a key passage joining conflict-heavy Homs and Aleppo, with Maaret al-Numan nearly smack-dab in the middle.

With no air support, access to that road is critical to the rebels success, but cluster-bombing it seems an interesting choice by the Assad regime.

Cluster munitions work like this:

A plane or helicopter drops a typical bomb shaped object from the air, basically a dispenser, that's filled with up to 2,000 'bomblets' referred to in the sterilizing vernacular of war as — subminitions.

If the video below is accurate, the subminitions dropped into Syria are anti-materiel (AMAT) bomblets designed to take out 'hard' targets like vehicles and equipment. You can tell by the stabilizers at their tails that were buoyed by a small parachute as they fell. 

These cluster bombs are designed to explode on impact when they strike the ground, or whatever target they were intended for.

While they still litter the earth posing danger to residents, particularly curious children, they are not necessarily designed to target people like other models.

Anti-Personnel (APERS) cluster bombs are specifically designed to do just that, and scatter entire areas with small, round bomblets, which act as land mines that will lay fallow until a bit of pressure is applied.

Most subminitions can be rigged with self-destruct fuses that can vary from a couple hours to several days; so it will be a sign of the regime's intentions, if those bomblets on the ground now have disarmed themselves or continue to injure people in the days ahead.

If the design was to keep the north-south highway unusable, Assad may be essentially trying to take out chunks of the thoroughfare, while littering it with bomblets that will likely detonate beneath the pressure of a vehicle tire.

Either way, this most recent clusterbomb attack seems to imply the loss of Maarat al-Numan was felt closely by the regime, and it has little intention of backing down any time soon.

For additional kicks and giggles, Ha'aretz reports:

[Human Rights Watch] HRW previously reported Syrian use of cluster bombs, which have been banned by most countries, in July and August but the renewed strikes indicate the government's determination to regain strategic control in the northwest.

Towns targeted included Maarat, Tamanea, Taftanaz and al-Tah. Cluster bombs were also used in other areas in Homs, Aleppo and Lattakia provinces as well as near Damascus, the rights group said.

Below is a video of the dropped clusterbombs , posted by HRW:

Now: Check out the rest of Syria's massive arsenal >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »