Chinese cyberspies have been reading the private emails of Obama-administration officials and "top national security and trade officials" since 2010, according to a senior administration official and a top-secret NSA document obtained by NBC.

The email espionage — codenamed "Dancing Panda" by the US before being dubbed "Legion Amethyst"— was detected in April 2010.

"The intrusion into personal emails was still active at the time of the briefing and, according to the senior official, is still going on," NBC reported.

"Dancing Panda" has successfully attacked at least 600 targets over the last five years, according to NBC.

The period overlaps with Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server for work-related correspondences while she served as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. Neither the official nor the document identified the specific targets of the cyberspying.

Clinton's private server is under investigation by the FBI, though Clinton is not a target of the investigation.

One of Clinton's excuses for not using a government email address was that the State Department's server was often subject to security breaches.

But the administration official told NBC that the officials' government email addresses were not hacked precisely because they are more secure than private servers.

The email correspondences of top US officials have been the target of Chinese cyberespionage since at least 2008, when spies targeted the email accounts of then-Sen. Barack Obama's and Sen. John McCain's presidential campaigns.

In 2010, NBC notes, the Chinese hacked the private email accounts of Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead.

Chinese hackers have breached airlines, health-insurance companies, and other government agencies to collect intelligence on US officials and their foreign contacts.

More than 21 million people had their sensitive background and security-clearance information stolen when Chinese hackers breached Office of Personnel Management (OPM) databases in early 2014. The same hackers reportedly attacked United Airlines— the main airline flying in and out of Washington, DC's Dulles Airport.

"There's no effective defense against these attacks and, as we've seen, there's also no effective deterrence," geopolitical expert Ian Bremmer told Business Insider in June.

"China isn't trying to engage in 'integrity' attacks against the US — they don't want to destroy American institutions and architecture as, after all, they're hugely invested in American economic success," he added.

“The Chinese are what I would call the bullies of cyberspace: Everybody knows what they’re doing, but nobody can stop them,” Tony Lawrence, chief executive officer of VOR Technology, a Columbia, Maryland-based cybersecurity firm that works with US defense agencies, told Bloomberg.

“These state actors, their job is to gather intelligence on other nations,” he added.

SEE ALSO: 'We should be very clear: China is at virtual war with the United States'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Fashion designer Nicole Miller reveals what Donald Trump is really like

The former head of one of the US government's leading intelligence divisions says that the US believed that religious extremists could carve out a sizable safe-haven in Syria as early as 2012 — but that the US did little to stop this from happening.

In an interview with Mehdi Hasan for Al Jazeera, retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, who lead the Defense Intelligence Agency from 2012 to 2014, called out the administration on its alleged inaction during the first year of the Syrian civil war. 

Hasan quotes what he describes as a "secret" DIA analysis from August 2012 warning that the chaos in Syria could allow for the creation of a Salafist enclave in the country's desert east. Hasan asked Flynn whether this meant the US actually predicted the rise of the ISIS caliphate and did nothing to stop it.

Flynn agrees, arguing that it shows the US should have had a smarter policy of cooperation with Syria's secular rebels.

"I think where we missed the point, where we totally blew it was in the very beginning, I mean we’re talking four years now into this effort in Syria ... the Free Syrian Army, that movement, I mean where are they today? Al Nusra, where are they today? How much have they changed?" Flynn asked. "When you don't get in and help somebody they’re going to find other means to achieve their goals."

Flynn suggests that the US's failure to assist the rebels earlier in the conflict created an opening for extremist groups. Mehdi pushed back, quoting the 2012 DIA assessment as saying that “The Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda in Iraq are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria" before accusing the US of "coordinating arms transfer to those same groups."

Flynn says he paid "very close attention" to reports like the DIA assessment and implies that he actually opposed forms of assistance that could benefit extremist groups. But Flynn disputed Mehdi's characterization of the administration turning a "blind eye" to the DIA's analysis and explained that US policymaking on Syria has always been convoluted.

"You have to really ask the President, what is it that he actually is doing with the policy that is in place, because it is very very confusing." Flynn said. 

The jihadist group began as Al Qaeda in Iraq, which fought the US military and the Iraqi state during last decade's US campaign in the country. ISIS was expelled from Al Qaeda in February 2014 because of the group's overly-brutal sectarian violence and refusal to listen to the group's Afghanistan and Pakistan-based global leadership. 

Although Al Qaeda in Iraq was hobbled when the US military pulled out of Iraq in 2011, the collapse of Syria provided AQI with a safe-haven.

The rule of a sectarian Shi'ite government in Baghdad, and the Baghdad government's failure to integrate anti-Al Qaeda Sunni militants into the security forces, provided further impetus for the group's growth.

During the Al Jazeera interview, Flynn also conceded that the US's military policies in the Middle East were at least partly to blame for the crisis in Syria and that the US had made a number of strategic errors that made the conflict more likely. 

He also conceded that US prisons in Iraq were responsible for the radicalization of thousands of young Iraqis, many of whom are now fighting with ISIS.

SEE ALSO: Syrian Kurds are using tablets to call in airstrikes against ISIS

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The US Navy just tested a giant electromagnetic catapult

Chinese cyberspies have had access to the private email accounts of Obama administration officials and "top national security and trade officials"for at least five years, NBC has reported, adding to the long list of data breaches suffered by the US government at the hands of China in recent months and years.

What the Chinese found in the private email accounts of top US officials — vacation plans, notes to friends, and other everyday correspondences that pass through personal inboxes — likely bordered on the mundane.

But the fact that the hackers were able to breach the accounts in the first place and the potential fallout make it clear that the breach shouldn't be taken lightly.

Here are 3 reasons why: 

Administration officials are falling for phishing attempts

The email breach shows that government employees are still the administration's weakest link in terms of cybersecurity.

At the highly technical Infiltrate hacking conference, a professional penetration tester for a major company in Silicon Valley told Business Insider that the easiest way to infiltrate a system is to bait an employee into clicking on an infected link in a seemingly innocuous email.

"People love to click on that blue line," Ray Boisvert, a veteran of Canada's intelligence services, told Business Insider at the conference.

From there, the hacker for hire can acquire the employee's username, passwords, and other sensitive information — which can lead a hacker into the larger system.

This tactic, known as "phishing," can be executed by unskilled scammers. When executed by a professional, however, phishing becomes a highly targeted tool that can trick even the savviest employees, let alone administration officials in their 50's and 60's whose work has only recently transitioned into the cyber realm.

Even if an individual has been trained by his or her agency to identify and avoid phishing scams, one cybersecurity course will not be enough to make that person change his or her behavior in the long run, especially if it's their personal email and their guard is down, cybersecurity expert Joe Loomis of Cybersponse told Business Insider.

"Statistically, if employees are not retrained to avoid phishing scams within 90 days, they start to click [on the malicious links] again," Loomis said, citing data provided by the cybersecurity company Phishbite. 

Hackers may have access to far more than just email accounts

Moreover, by unknowingly clicking on malicious links in emails, officials likely gave hackers access to far more than just the contents of their inboxes.

The information that can be gleaned from someone's personal inbox goes beyond the mundane correspondences that often fill it, Loomis noted, especially when you have that person's passwords and, consequently, the keys to unlocking other areas of their digital lives. 

"And it only takes one email to compromise the entire computer," he said. "These hackers cast a very wide net when choosing who to target, so that ultimately it becomes like shooting fish in a barrel."

"It's better to assume they’ve gotten a lot of intelligence this way than to say they haven’t been successful," he added.

A political nightmare for Hillary, even if her private emails were secure

In March, Hillary Clinton admitted that she had used her private email address for work-related correspondences while serving as Secretary of State from 2009-2013.

Clinton's use of a private email address was not illegal, but it drew intense criticism from politicians and experts who feared she had been sharing sensitive national security information via the seemingly insecure clintonemail.com server. The server is now being investigated by the FBI.

"In many ways, Hillary's private system would have been safer purely because it's a smaller target," Loomis noted. "Only she and a few other people are using it, she had a whole IT security team monitoring the system for breaches."

(In fact, Clinton has never provided details about her security team. A statement released by her team in March stated only that "robust protections were put in place and additional upgrades and techniques employed over time as they became available, including consulting and employing third party experts.")

"Still, other candidates will probably jump on this and create a lot of fear and uncertainty about it," Loomis added. "It's an unfortunate example of being in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Presidential candidate Jeb Bush, one of Clinton's top GOP rivals, has already gone on the attack, tweeting that Clinton "should have known" better than to use a private email address for work.

New @nbc report confirms personal email more vulnerable to Chinese hacking & @HillaryClinton should have known that. http://t.co/u0hlTiLE6T

— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) August 10, 2015

"Even if Clinton did nothing wrong, she'll be guilty by association at this point," Loomis said. "It's a political nightmare."

SEE ALSO: China caught the US 'with our pants down' — and the Obama administration is struggling to respond

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The Coast Guard seized this submarine and 16,000 pounds of cocaine — then it sank

China's military wants the ability to create large modular artificial islands that can be repositioned around the world as necessary. And it's not as outlandish a goal as it might seem.

According to Navy Recognition, China's Jidong Development Group unveiled its first design for a Chinese-built Very Large Floating Structure (VLSFs) at its National Defense Science and Technology Achievement exhibition in Beijing at the end of July. The structures are comprised of numerous smaller floating modules that can be assembled together at sea in order to create a larger floating platform. 

VLSFs have a number of uses. The artificial islands can be used as fake islands for touristic purposes, or can also be constructed to function as piers, military bases, or even floating airports, Navy Recognition notes. 

But China's proposed VLSFs would have a purpose-built design that would allow the platforms to function as floating military bases. According to Popular Science, their modular Lego block-like design allows for the islands to be easily constructed far away from port. Additionally, the modular nature of the VLSFs ensure that the structures are highly compartmentalized. This ensures that the islands would be harder to sink as a large number of different modules would need to be damaged before a VLSF would become unseaworthy. 

Popular Science also notes that a VLSF, if properly constructed, could hypothetically carry a significantly larger compliment of planes, aircraft, and supplies than a traditional aircraft carrier. A VSLF could also have a longer runway as well, meaning it could accommodate much larger aircraft, even if it would be far less mobile than a carrier. 

So far, China has yet to start construction on any VLSFs. But Beijing's official unveiling of the idea reflects the country's ongoing interest in high-end defense concepts, especially ones that could help project Chinese hard power into disputed maritime areas.

As China continues to try to expand its sphere of influence throughout Asia, particularly in the South China Sea, the idea of a moveable artificial island has obvious strategic appeal. 

"[W]ith China showing a remarkable ability to rapidly convert coral reefs into military outposts, [VLSF'S] could be a particularly useful supplement to its anti-access, area-denial systems (A2/AD)," Jack Detsch writes for The Diplomat. "The battle stations could also do more to offset Washington’s tremendous basing advantages in the Asia-Pacific theater."

China's construction of VLSFs would follow Beijing's other, more advanced island-building project. China is rapidly dredging and constructing artificial islands on top of coral shoals and reefs throughout the South China Sea. So far, China has constructed over 1.5 square miles of artificial islands. According to Reuters, Beijing has completed advanced stages of construction for six different island reefs throughout the sea and has started work on a seventh island. 

China's actions in the South China Sea risk escalating a series of territorial disputes. A number of neighboring countries claim the reefs, islands, and oil and gas deposits in the area: 

Taiwan, Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines also have military bases within the South China Sea on islands that those countries control.

SEE ALSO: The South China Sea may be about to get even more crowded

SEE ALSO: These Chinese military advancements are shifting the balance of power in Asia

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's how the world's most notorious drug lord escaped from his high-security prison cell

The clock is ticking on one of President Barack Obama's major campaign promises: Closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

And his promise might not be fulfilled before he leaves office because of an unlikely source: Ashton Carter, his defense secretary.

The Daily Beast reports that according to a White House source, Carter is unwilling to be responsible for the release of Guantanamo detainees and accountable for their conduct once they are released. His aversion to signing off on detainees' transfers is so strong that he seems willing to ignore Obama's preferred timeline.

The Obama administration wants to cut the number of remaining detainees at Guantanamo Bay by almost half — and the only thing missing is Carter's signature. 

Last month, The New York Times reported that White House national security adviser Susan Rice had presented Carter with a memo that said he would have one month to make decisions on transferring the prisoners away from Guantanamo.

The White House had also announced last month that it was in the final phase of putting together a plan that would allow them to close the prison. Three weeks later, it has yet to release a detailed plan.

The prison has been the source of many controversies since its establishment during the administration of former President George W. Bush. More than 100 detainees remain at Guantanamo and the 52 who have been cleared are awaiting Carter's signature to be released.

Current law bans the use of federal funds to transfer Guantanamo Bay prisoners to American soil, which means the US has to find other countries willing to take the detainees. But 43 of the 52 prisoners that have been cleared are Yemeni, and the US government does not want to let them go back to their country since they do not deem the Yemeni government stable enough to monitor the released detainees, according to The Daily Beast's report.

One defense official told The Daily Beast that Carter was under pressure from the White House to sign off on detainees' releases more swiftly. But Carter already noted in June he was not confident the prison would close by the end of the administration and said he would not let himself be pressured. 

"I’m not confident, but I am hopeful. I think we’ll have a good proposal, and I think we’re hoping it wins the support that it needs in Congress, so that we can move forward," Carter said during an interview with CBS News in June.

Some defense officials also defended Carter, saying the cases he had to sign off on were among the toughest to resolve. The White House denied any friction between Carter and the administration. 

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's how the world's most notorious drug lord escaped from his high-security prison cell

US President Barack Obama says the landmark nuclear deal with Iran may still leave Tehran with the ability to accumulate a weapon's worth of nuclear fuel within a matter of months 15 years down the road.

In an interview with NPR, Obama said Iran's "breakout time"— or the time needed to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a single nuclear device — would plunge to "a matter of months" 15 years into the deal.

Obama added that this 15-year delay in Iran's capabilities was one of the virtues of the agreement the US and five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany (the P5+1) signed with Iran in July.

"If in fact the breakout times now are a few months, and we're able to push that breakout time out to a year so that we have more time and space to see whether or not Iran is cheating on an agreement, kicking out inspectors, going for a nuclear weapon — if the breakout time is extended for 15 years and then it goes back to where it is right now, why is that a bad deal?" Obama said.

The acknowledgment of Iran's future capabilities hints at a trade-off that lies at the heart of the nuclear deal's logic: The deal controls Iran's stockpile of fissile material while leaving it with the infrastructure needed to rapidly accumulate bomb fuel even within the life of the deal — something that puts an intense amount of pressure on international monitors and future US leaders.

Going by administration statements since 2013, the US didn't always want the deal to turn out this way, and it intended for a final agreement with Iran to curtail aspects of Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

At times in 2013, chief US Iran negotiator Wendy Sherman and Secretary of State John Kerry said a strong deal would include the closing of the Fordow enrichment facility and the Arak heavy-water reactor.

Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), all of the country's nuclear facilities remain open, including those two.

The deal forces Iran to take roughly half of its centrifuges offline, prohibits Iran from operating advanced centrifuges for a period of 8 1/2 years, imposes restrictions on centrifuge research and development for 10 years, and limits uranium enrichment and heavy-water-reactor development for 15 years. But it doesn't actually require Iran to export or destroy any of its nuclear infrastructure.

All of its nuclear facilities will remain open. Iran will be allowed to operate hundreds of centrifuges for enriching non-fissile placeholder elements at Fordow, a facility inside a mountain on an Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps base that was discovered by Western intelligence agencies only in 2009. And Iran can enrich uranium at Fordow 15 years into the deal.

For a period of 15 years, Iran will have to modify its heavy-water reactor at Arak so as to make it impossible to produce bomb-grade plutonium. But it will still get to keep a reactor that has no conceivable civilian purpose and a possible future plutonium path to a nuclear weapon.

The administration's early statements about its negotiating objectives suggest that the US wanted a nuclear deal predicated on infrastructure rollback and on denying Iran the physical capability of quickly producing a weapon. Instead, the current deal is based largely around fastidious stockpile management.

It prohibits Iran from possessing more than 300 kilograms of low-enriched uranium. And it reaches a compromise on centrifuge development and numbers: It allows Iran to mothball rather than export or destroy its centrifuges, giving Tehran the ability to rapidly narrow its breakout time if it decided to take them back online.

But experts believe this would take months to accomplish and would definitively tip off international inspectors on activities that the JCPOA explicitly disallows.

In the words of administration officials, the deal "cuts off all pathways to a nuclear weapon." It still doesn't remove the means of reaching a nuclear weapon within a short time span if Iran decides to scrap the deal. And after 15 years, enrichment and stockpile limits disappear, even if end-use monitoring for fissile materials remains in place.

It's possible the US negotiators thought stockpile controls obviated the need for Iran to export its centrifuges, close its illicit facilities, and shutter its heavy-water reactor. After all, the deal itself suggests that infrastructure control wasn't the negotiators' primary objective, as the JCPOA actually includes provisions that expand the range of Iran's nuclear hardware and expertise.

For instance, the deal obligates signatories to assist Iran in the development of its fuel-fabrication capabilities, something that would wean Tehran off of the need to import fuel assemblies for its nuclear reactors.

But it's also possible that Iran negotiated successfully enough to force the P5+1 off of its initial demands. A deal that even administration officials said would be based on infrastructure rollback instead had to depend on the next best option: Stringent stockpile controls that still allowed Iran to keep nearly all of its nuclear hardware in some form and to bring that hardware online within the life of the deal.

This puts a huge amount of pressure on international monitors and on the future P5+1 leaders who must interpret and enforce the deal. And it leaves Iran with the option of rapidly accumulating weapons fuel if it ever believed the deal was no longer working to its advantage.

Obama motions toward this trade-off in the NPR interview. The president describes a "situation where 15 years from now, that breakout time is approximately where it is now, but we now have an entire infrastructure that's been built to keep track of exactly what Iran's doing, and we had the entire international community behind us."

Obama says the agreement displaces Iran's current breakout capabilities by 15 years but makes up for it through unprecedented stockpile monitoring and control. Weeks before a decisive vote in Congress, the deal's most forceful public advocate has been forced to speak frankly about what his negotiating outcome buys the US and its allies.

SEE ALSO: Obama is sending Congress a loaded warning about the Iran deal

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: People doing backflips on a two-inch wide strap is a real sport called slacklining

A US fighter jet crashed in a Bavarian forest in southern Germany on Tuesday but the pilot managed to eject and suffered only light injuries, police said.

Authorities sealed off the crash site near Engelmannsreuth in northern Bavaria and firefighters were trying to extinguish flames in the jet wreckage, a regional police spokeswoman said.

The reason for the crash remains unclear.

According to US Lt. Col. Brian Carlin the reason for the crash was an engine failure, Kurier reports. 

Local news portal nordbayern.de quoted a police official in nearby Pegnitz as saying the jet had taken off from the Grafenwoehr military training ground and subsequently crashed during a maneuver.

The jet was carrying a 100-kilogram bomb for a training exercise, Oberfranken TV reports. 

Here is a picture of smoke rising from the crash:

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The 6 coolest phrases only people in the military use

An American military source told Fox News that US military leaders were "outraged" when Turkey began launching airstrikes against the Kurdish PKK in northern Iraq just hours after striking a deal with the US opposing the Islamic State, the militant group also known as ISIS, ISIL, or Daesh.

A Turkish officer entered the allied headquarters in the air war against ISIS and "announced that the strike would begin in 10 minutes and he needed all allied jets flying above Iraq to move south of Mosul immediately," the source said.

"We were outraged."

The US special forces stationed in northern Iraq advising and training Kurdish peshmerga fighters had virtually no warning before Turkish jets started striking the mountains, where the PKK is headquartered.

"We had no idea who the Turkish fighters were, their call signs, what frequencies they were using, their altitude or what they were squawking [to identify the jets on radar]," the source said.

Turkish military leaders asked coalition officers to reveal the trainers' specific whereabouts to avoid bombing them, but the officers flatly refused.

"No way we were giving that up," the military source said.

"If one of our guys got hit, the Turks would blame us. We gave the Turks large grids to avoid bombing. We could not risk having US forces hit by Turkish bombs."

The confrontation highlights the tension growing between the US and Turkey, which became a reluctant ally in the fight against ISIS after years of turning a blind eye to the militants' illicit activity on its southern border.

On July 24, Ankara announced it would begin to strike ISIS strongholds in northern Syria and would allow the US to do the same from its Incirlik airbase in southeastern Turkey.

The ongoing bombing campaign against PKK strongholds in northern Iraq came as a surprise, but it probably shouldn't have: Turkey has long seen the PKK — a designated terrorist organization that waged a three-decade insurgency inside Turkey — as more of an existential threat than ISIS, which refrained from launching attacks inside Turkey even as its militants lived and operated along the border.

"There is no difference between PKK and Daesh," Turkish foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said.

But Ankara's recent anti-terror sweep — which has resulted in the arrest of more than 800 suspected PKK members, compared with just over 100 suspected ISIS sympathizers — and the intensity of its bombing campaign in northern Iraq has made it clear that Turkey's main goal is not to prevent the consolidation of ISIS, but to halt the creation of an autonomous Kurdish state along its southern border.

And blowback — most recently in the form of attacks of security forces and the US consulate in Istanbul — is becoming increasingly likely.

The US, meanwhile, is moving away from its $500 million Syrian train-and-equip program and embracing a partnership with the YPG — Syrian Kurds who are closely allied with the PKK.

"To fully embrace a Kurdish force would complicate an already fragile strategy, two of the defense officials concluded," Nancy Youseff of The Daily Beast reports.

"The Turks ... would not welcome an emboldened Kurdish force on its southern border. Neither would many of America's Arab allies, who are also threatened by Kurdish sovereignty movements."

And if Turkey keeps going after PKK while not trying to provoke ISIS, "it will leave the US without a Syria strategy," geopolitical expert Ian Bremmer told Business Insider recently.

"Access to Incirlik airbase matters, but the additional bombing it enables will only help contain ISIS, not roll it back," Bremmer added. "And it will leave Washington without the improved relations with Ankara that the Obama administration is hoping for."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 5 of the most elite special forces in the world

The US Air Force's push to develop operational flying saucers 60 years ago laid the conceptual groundwork for one of the variants of Lockheed Martin's F-35, MIT Technology Review reports. 

The F-35 comes in three variants, with key mechanical differences for the Air Force, Marines, and Navy - the F-35A, F-35B, and F-35C respectively.

Of the three models, the F-35B is the most technologically different. 

Unlike the F-35A and F-35C, the Marines needed their variant to be capable of conducting short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) operations.

This request necessitated that the F-35B be given a lifting fan. And, as Desire Francine G. Fedrigo, Ricardo Gobato, Alekssander Gobato note in a paper at the Cornell University Library, the F-35B's lifting fan has its conceptual roots in flying saucers. 

Between 1954 and 1961, the US Air Force spent $10 million attempting to develop a flying saucer that became known as an Avrocar. The Avrocar was a vertical and/or short take-off and landing (V/STOL) saucer that was powered by one giant central fan.

Despite its seven years of development, the Air Force failed to make the Avrocar into a mission capable vehicle that could potentially replace helicopters. 

MIT Technology Review notes that the aircraft was "hot and almost unbearably uncomfortable for the pilot. And it demonstrated various idiosyncrasies such as taking five seconds to turn 90 degrees to the left but 11 seconds to turn the same amount to the right, presumably because of its central rotating fan."

However, despite the Avrocars' failings, the technology did point researchers towards the feasibility of developing and embedding a central lift fan turbine within an aircraft for variations of vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) technology.  

"The concept of a lift fan, driven by a turbojet engine is not dead, and lives today as a key component of Lockheed X-35 Joint Strike Fighter contender," Fedrigo notes, adding that the conceptual framework of the Avrocar helped General Electric's own development of a booster fan propulsion system. 

Whereas the Avrocar's development ultimately failed, though, GE's "Vertifan" went on to prove the concept of successful lifting fan technology. This in turn lead to a DARPA sponsored development challenge that gave birth to lifting fans being used in the F-35B. 

The F-35B was declared ready for combat by the Marine Corps on July 31. 

SEE ALSO: The F-35 can't outmaneuver a plane it is meant to replace

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 5 of the most elite special forces in the world

A New York Times investigation of the maximum-security prison from which two convicted murderers escaped in early June revealed that prisoners said they there were brutally interrogated by guards following the high-profile jail-break.

"Where are they going? What did you hear? How much are they paying you to keep your mouth shut?" one guard allegedly asked inmate Patrick Alexander, while holding him up against a wall by his throat.

The interrogations allegedly began hours after Richard Matt, 49, and David Sweat, 35, escaped from their honor block cells on June 6, and lasted for days. More than 60 inmates have filed complaints with the prisoners' rights organization Prisoners' Legal Services, which are also being looked into by the Department of Corrections.

Alexander, who said his interrogations were particularly harsh, reportedly shared a cell with Richard Matt.

“The officer jumps up and grabs me by my throat, lifts me out of the chair, slams my head into the pipe along the wall,” he told the Times. Then he starts punching me in the face. The other two get up and start hitting me also in the ribs and stomach.”

It was then when the officers threatened to waterboard him, Alexander said.

“You know what waterboarding is?” the prisoner said he was asked.

The alleged abused came as the prison and authorities frantically search for the convicted murders.

“Must have kept you awake with all that cutting, huh?” New York governor Andrew Cuomo asked an inmate after inspecting the holes made by the escapees, according to video of the exchange cited by The Times. 

Another inmate, Victor Aponte, alleges similar abuse, writing in his complaint that officers tied a plastic bag around his neck and tightened it until he lost consciousness.

“I don’t know how long he hung me up like that because I passed out,” Mr. Aponte wrote.

To date, no prisoners have been implicated in the convicts' escapes. Two prison guards, however, have been charged for allegedly providing Sweat and Matt with the tools they needed to break out, and 12 staffers are reportedly on leave following questions about their possible role in the escape.

But the department’s Correctional Emergency Response Team (CERT) was not taking any chances. In the weeks following the escape, the Times reports, the team transferred inmates who had lived near Matt and Sweat to solitary confinement, often beating them along the way, the inmates claim.

“The CERT team rushed into my cell, threw me down on the bed, twisted my wrist and yelled at me not to resist,” an inmate, Manuel Nunez, wrote. He added that later they “assaulted me while I was cuffed, chained and shackled.”

The investigation follows an earlier New York Times report about how the maximum security prison wasn't actually all that secure. Corrections officers had become complacent, the report noted, leading to the kinds of oversights that allowed the convicts to meticulously plan, rehearse, and stage their escape.

The Times found, among other things, that nightly bed checks were not performed properly, underground tunnels were not regularly inspected, and some security posts were not filled.

Read the full Times investigation here >>

SEE ALSO: Escaped convict Richard Matt once promised to murder another inmate's wife to get out of jail

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: People doing backflips on a two-inch wide strap is a real sport called slacklining

US Secretary of State John Kerry spoke at Reuters' New York headquarters on Tuesday, presenting a passionately argued case in favor of the nuclear agreement with Iran, the landmark accord that Congress will vote on in a little more than a month.

At the talk, which Business Insider attended, Kerry argued that congressional rejection of the deal — which will only occur in the still highly unlikely event that deal opponents can muster a two-thirds majority of both chambers of Congress needed to override a presidential veto — would force the US to impose sanctions on the banks and businesses of nations that had accepted the nuclear accord. He said this would jeopardize the US dollar's primacy as the world's reserve currency.

Kerry said that Iran would have to build a "second, separate fuel cycle" to cheat on the deal, but that the agreement's safeguards make it impossible for Tehran to go that route without international monitors knowing about it. And he warned that spurning the deal could be a serious enough breach of faith to put Iran on the fast-track to a nuclear weapon.

These are standard defenses of the agreement by now. But Kerry had a few other, more notable statements about President Barack Obama's top foreign-policy priority. Here are three of the highlights.

Kerry said Iran doesn't want to build a nuclear weapon because of a religious injunction from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei banning nuclear weapons. 

"The Ayatollah has issued a fatwa .... declaring no one should ever possess a nuclear weapon in Iran," Kerry said. "We said, let's take the fatwa and codify it into the agreement," in the form of the deal's permanent prohibition on Iran ever developing or even working towards a nuclear weapons capability.

This is a curious line of defense for the agreement, as the fatwa has been a frequent subject of controversy. There is no publicly available text of the fatwa and the Iranian government has superseded earlier fatwas on chemical-weapons possession and development in the 1980s. Observers disagree on whether the supposed 2005 fatwa actually exists, and what its status would be within Iranian strategic planning if it did. The Washington Post once described the fatwa as "a diplomatic MacGuffin — something that gives the Americans a reason to begin to trust the Iranians and the Iranians a reason to make a deal."

Even Kerry seemed to realize the tension in using the fatwa to sell the deal.

"The IRGC [Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps] still wants [a nuclear weapon] and they are opposed to this agreement," Kerry said.

By implication, Kerry doesn't seem to the think that the IRGC considers the fatwa (assuming it is still operative or even exists) to be binding upon it — worrying, since the IRGC has extensive connections to Iran's nuclear program.

Violations of the arms embargo aren't binding on the nuclear agreement's sanctions "snapback" provisions — even though the embargo will be lifted as a result of the deal.  

“The arms embargo is not tied to the snapback; it is tied to a separate set of obligations," Kerry said. "So [Iran] is not in material breach of the nuclear agreement for violating the arms piece of it.”

Kerry explained that conventional arms control and nuclear restrictions exist on separate-but-related tracks within the agreement. This makes sense — after all it would be illogical for an agreement meant to stanch the spread of nuclear arms to hinge on the matters related to the spread of conventional arms, many of which are widely available anyway.

At the same time, Kerry's statement beckons the question of why the arms embargo, which will be lifted eight years into the deal, was included in the agreement at all.

The arms embargo isn't strictly related to Iran's nuclear program. Kerry's answer hints at the awkwardness of linking the embargo to the nuclear issue — and then proceeding as if the two are totally unrelated.

This dynamic likely works to Iran's benefit. Tehran is already a serial violator of weapons-exports restrictions, facilitating transfers to the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and to the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah in defiance of multiple UN resolutions. And the US secretary of state has now acknowledged that this sort of intransigence won't trigger punitive sanctions snapback, even though Iran will reap a substantial conventional-arms benefit as a result of the deal.

Still no answer on the "Additional Protocol." 

Kerry rightly said that Iran's agreement to work out an Additional Protocol (AP) with the International Atomic Energy Agency was one of the strengths of the deal. An AP is a country-specific set of nuclear limitations that is considered binding under international law. 

"Iran has agreed to adopt, ratify, and live by the Additional Protocol," Kerry said. But the agreement text refers to "provisional" implementation of the AP, and gives no timeline for Iran to actually ratify it. 

One of the mysteries of the deal is how long the US and its allies will tolerate Iran's non-binding implementation of the AP. It's hardly an abstract question: Iran accepted an AP in 2003 without ratifying one, and then suspended implementation in 2005 on the basis that they were accepting what Tehran believed to be unnecessary and voluntary limits on their program.

Whether there's an end-date to the US and its partners' acceptance of provisional implementation of the AP is one of the most important questions related to the deal moving forward. Kerry didn't address it.

SEE ALSO: The trade-off at the heart of the Iran deal

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This drummer created a whole song using only the sound of coins

The fate of the nuclear deal with Iran appears to be in some jeopardy.

Key democrats in Congress – most notably New York Senator Chuck Schumer – have recently announced that they would vote to reject the agreement.

Passage of the agreement is far from a done deal, with more than two dozen Senate Democrats remaining in the uncertain column.

Opponents regard the deal with disdain, characterizing the accord to curtail Iran’s nuclear program as counterproductive, naïve and reminiscent of England’s appeasement of Nazi Germany.

Critics of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) are right to be skeptical of Iran’s commitment to multilateral accords.

The International Atomic Energy Agency reported on several occasions – including in 2005, 2008 and 2011 – that Iran had violated important articles of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. But even given Iran’s lackluster record, I’d argue that a move by Congress to block the accord would result in a less favorable security outcome for the US and its allies.

The importance of the deal

The benefits of the deal for Iran are substantial.

They include extensive sanctions relief that would allow Iran to resume oil export sales and gain access to frozen assets, estimated at US$55 billion. That would give the regime an enormous incentive to abide by the terms of the accord. In return for sanctions relief, Tehran has agreedto relinquish 98% of its supply of enriched uranium, limit its centrifuge operations and restrict enrichment to 3.67%. These actions would significantly lengthen Iran’s “breakout period,” or the time needed to create a nuclear weapon.

Additionally, the JCPOA also includes a carefully crafted verification protocol that permits intrusive and technically savvy inspections of known and suspected nuclear facilities.

Critics wanted to coerce Iran into complete capitulation so that it would cease all nuclear activities in perpetuity and allow “anywhere, anytime inspections.” Barring that, they advocated starving the regime so that it would be unable to afford nuclear, militant or terrorist activities.

But this sort of result was unfeasible. Short of Iran actually testing a nuclear device, the P5+1 – the US, Germany, China, UK, Russia and France – were never willing to support a marked increase in economic pressure.

What if the deal fails?

A blocked deal would lead to several alarming consequences.

A no-deal Iran would have 33,000 pounds of enriched uranium instead of just 660 pounds. It would be able to produce enough fuel for a nuclear weapon in a few weeks instead of a full year.

If Tehran does aspire to build a nuclear weapon, as critics maintain, the dissolution of the deal would, in fact, facilitate their goal. The regime has publicly stated that it would speed up enrichment if the deal was blocked. Iran would also possess additional paths to a bomb without the deal’s prohibition on Iran reprocessing its plutonium.

What is more, the collapse of the plan would scuttle the enhanced transparency that the international community would have gained about Iran’s nuclear program as a result of inspections.

In the wake of a blocked deal, the solidarity underpinning the present multilateral, UN-backed sanctions program would dissipate. That would leave the US standing alone or with few allies. The historical record shows that without multilateral sanctions, the US lacks leverage to make Iran capitulate.

Additionally, China and Russia are likely to benefit by exploiting American obstinacy as an excuse to strike trade deals with Iran. That would bolster China’s economic and Russian’s strategic positions.

But the most dangerous diplomatic setback would be the effect a botched deal could have on America’s transatlantic alliances. America’s allies strongly back the deal. Blocking the JCPOA would quite likely result in a deep rift between the United States and its NATO allies, crippling support for future collaboration.

And then there is the question of how the sinking of the pact would complicate nonproliferation objectives far beyond the Middle East. America’s perceived unwillingness to negotiate on nuclear diplomacy would further marginalize any pro-diplomacy voices inside North Korea, arguably the more significant nuclear threat. Blocking the accord would ossify Pyongyang’s distrust of the US and give greater momentum to North Korea’s nuclear buildup.

Minding valid concerns

Critics of the deal emphasize the danger presented by the windfall of unfrozen money Tehran will acquire. They predict that money will flow to Iran’s military and its investment in militant foreign activities, including sponsorship of terrorist organizations.

They’re not wrong – funding will probably flow in this direction. Still, the danger presented by this for the US and its regional allies is far less than the threat posed by the robust nuclear program that will likely emerge in the deal’s absence.

Moreover, the amount of funds freed up by the end of sanctions that will be devoted to military ends is probably much less than critics suggest.

Iran has pressing economic matters it must deal with immediately. The regime will have to invest between $100 billion and $200 billion in its oil and gas industries simply to reestablish past production levels. To satisfy the rising expectations of the public regarding the economic bounty it expects to materialize after the deal, the government will also have to invest in the domestic economy.

If the bulk of the unfrozen money does indeed flow to the military, the US and its allies might even benefit from a better financed Iranian military, which could use the new funds to step up its military operations against the Islamic State.

Still, simply signing a deal with Iran does not automatically make this episode of diplomacy a success. The devil is indeed in the details – implementation and verification.

The international community must prove its resolve to Iran. Iran must be shown that it will be held accountable and that automatic “snapback” provisions of the deal will be reimposed in response to a significant and unresolved violation.

The deal indeed fails to achieve all that the US could have hoped for. Still, the accord offers a credible path to a peaceful resolution of the crisis, and therefore it would be far too risky to turn it down.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: People doing backflips on a two-inch wide strap is a real sport called slacklining

Secretary of State John Kerry says he writes emails "with the awareness" that Russian and Chinese hackers are likely reading them, he revealed in an interview with CBS News on Tuesday.

"It is very likely. It is not ... outside the realm of possibility and we know they have attacked a number of American interests over the course of the last few days," Kerry said, referring to recent reports that Russian hackers attacked the Pentagon and Chinese cyberspies were reading US officials' emails.

"It's very possible ... and I certainly write things with that awareness," Kerry added. He did not specify whether he was referring to personal email, government email, or both.

Chinese cyberspies have reportedly been reading the private emails of Obama-administration officials and "top national security and trade officials" since 2010.

The report comes amid the ongoing issue of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server for work-related correspondences while she served as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.

Her private server was handed over to the FBI yesterday as part of an ongoing investigation.

Personal inboxes are not the only things being targeted: Chinese hackers  — known as the "bullies of cyberspace"— have breached airlines, health-insurance companies, and other government agencies to collect intelligence on US officials and their foreign contacts.

More than 21 million people had their sensitive background and security-clearance information stolen when Chinese hackers breached Office of Personnel Management (OPM) databases in early 2014. The same hackers reportedly attacked United Airlines— the main airline flying in and out of Washington, DC's Dulles Airport — and American airlines.

Kerry emphasized that he is well aware of the changing nature of espionage. He also noted that cyberattacks are of "enormous concern" to the administration.

"Spying has taken place for centuries and the latest means of spying is to be going after peoples' cyber," he said. "Companies spend billions of dollars to protect themselves, the United States government does the same."

Still, as geopolitical expert Ian Bremmer noted to Business Insider in June, "there's no effective defense against these attacks and, as we've seen, there's also no effective deterrence."

SEE ALSO: 'It only takes one email': 3 reasons why China reading Obama administration private emails is even worse than it seems

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's the actual security footage of 'El Chapo' escaping from his prison cell

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) just waded in to what could be one of the most contentious issues of his campaign: War in the Middle East.

At a speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library on Tuesday evening, Bush laid out his vision for confronting the extremist group that calls itself the Islamic State (also known as ISIS, ISIL, and Daesh) in Iraq and Syria.

For Bush, it's a complicated topic, given family ties. He has acknowledged that the decision of his brother, former President George W. Bush, to invade Iraq in 2003 was a mistake.  

Bush's speech, though, attempted to shift blame for the current situation in Iraq, the rise of ISIS, and the prolonged conflict in Syria on the Obama administration — and, specifically, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He unleashed a blistering attack on Clinton, in a preview of a potential general-election matchup.

“Who can seriously argue that America and our friends are safer today than in 2009, when the President and Secretary Clinton – the storied ‘team of rivals’ – took office?" Bush said. He added that Clinton had "stood by" as the situation in Iraq began deteriorating.

"So eager to be the history-makers, they failed to be the peacemakers. It was a case of blind haste to get out, and to call the tragic consequences somebody else’s problem. Rushing away from danger can be every bit as unwise as rushing into danger, and the costs have been grievous," Bush said.

In laying out a broader foreign-policy vision, Bush also acknowledged parallels between his policy and his brother's doctrine. He spoke wistfully about the "the global war on terror," and cited the 2007 troop surge in Iraq as the one meaningful success in the region.

"Rushing away from danger can be every bit as unwise as rushing into danger, and the costs have been grievous," Bush said.

Here are the main proposals from Bush's Middle East plan:

• Support Iraqi forces and moderate Syrian rebels. According to Bush, Iraqis "have the will to win, but not the means." Bush said he would do more to support Iraqi security forces, train moderate Syrian forces, and engage with the Sunni tribes. Though he didn't specify how, Bush said he'd go further than the Obama administration's current policy on all three areas.
• Potentially embedding US troops in Iraqi units. Bush proposed adopting Canada's model, sending some of the 3,500 American troops to help direct Iraqi units on the front lines. The former governor specifically endorsed putting more forward air controllers on the ground to "improve the ability of fighter aircraft and Apache attack helicopters to provide necessary close air support to local ground forces." This idea has been floated by Gen. Mark Milley, the nominee for the next US Army Chief of Staff.
• Potentially deploy more American troops. Bush left the door open for more ground troops in Iraq. "We have around 3,500 soldiers and Marines in Iraq, and more may well be needed."
• Mend ties between Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. Bush said that he would work to find diplomatic solutions that reduce tensions among various religious and ethnic groups in Iraq, though he didn't offer specifics.
• Establish safe zones in Syria. Bush praised the "ISIS-free zone" in Syria agreed to the US and Turkey, but he said the US needs to establish more of those so-called safe zones. The "ISIS-free zone" faces a host of logistical challenges before it can be officially established.
• Declare a no-fly zone in Syria. Bush said his plan will stop the Bashar al-Assad regime's bombing raids and "keep Iranian flights from resupplying the regime, Hezbollah, and other bad actors." The US has so far resisted establishing an official no-fly zone in Syria.
• Reverse troop cuts. The Obama administration is in the process of slimming down the US Army to its lowest troop level in decades, partially in response to congressionally mandated budget cuts, which Bush opposes.
• Work with Facebook and Twitter to eliminate ISIS's online presence. There's not much distance between Clinton and Bush on this issue — last month, Clinton said that online radicalism was a more "principal threat" to the US than ISIS' physical presence.
• Reject the Iran deal. Bush, like every other Republican in the 2016 field, said the multi-national nuclear agreement spearheaded by the United States is a mistake that undermines Israel's security.
• Restore relationships with Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Bush said ties with Egypt and Saudi Arabia have been "badly mishandled by this administration." He also advocated building closer relationships with the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Tunisia.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Donald Trump’s net worth — according to someone who isn’t Donald Trump

Two massive explosions rocked the Chinese city of Tianjin at 11:30 p.m. local time on Wednesday, People's Daily China reported, and hundreds of people are injured.

The state broadcaster CCTV reported that the blast — which created a huge mushroom cloud and triggered a quake that could be felt up to 6 miles away — happened at Tianjin Dongjiang Port Rui Hai International Logistics Co. Ltd., which handles the transport of hazardous goods.

More than 40 people were killed, according to multiple reports. Hundreds more were injured in the blast, and more injuries are expected.

CCTV reported that there had been two explosions within 30 seconds of each other and that about 100 fire trucks had been sent to the scene.

A video seems to indicate that the explosion was powerful enough to knock over a camera a good distance away.

Tianjin is a major port and industrial city located 72 miles southeast of the capital of Beijing.

The Chinese social-media site SinaWeibo.com has posted apparent photos of the aftermath:

Two people recorded the explosion from their apartment.

Here's a translation:

Person 1: That's about it right? The explosions should be over with.

Images are being tweeted of people who appear to have been injured in the blast:

Dozens of people gathered around the local hospital waiting for news.

Benjamin Zhang and Reuters contributed to this report.

SEE ALSO: China's largest paper says this is security camera footage showing the moment of the massive explosion in a major city

Join the conversation about this story »

There's nothing quite like the bragging rights of a new, exotic stamp in your passport. However, that won't be happening with the following countries, which, as of astonishingly recently, no longer exist.

Whether they lost wars, were adopted by other countries, or simply got forgotten, here are nine countries that ceased to exist in the 20th century.​

Neutral Moresnet, 1816 to 1920

After Napoleon's fall in 1815, Europe had to rethink its borders.

This small piece of land, less than 1.5 square milesthat used to be wedged between present-day Germany and Belgium, fell through the cracks when Europe's borders were redrawn, and became a "co-dominium," meaning that Belgium and what was then Prussia shared custody of it: Both had their eye on a profitable zinc mine.

The tiny territory was Dutch-Prussian prior to Belgium's 1830 independence, briefly German when annexed during World War I, and finally formally annexed by Belgium in 1920. Today, it essentially amounts to the Belgian city of Kelmis.

Republic of Salò, 1943 to 1945

Also known as the Italian Social Republic, Salò was essentially a Nazi satellite state in Italy and run by Mussolini. Or rather "run" by Mussolini, as it was really only officially recognized by Germany, Japan, and the rest of the Axis powers, and depended heavily on German troops to maintain control. While it claimed Rome as its capital and northern Italy as its territory, it really centered on the small town of Salò, which is near Lake Garda and east of Milan. The rickety regime came to an end in 1945 — on what's now known as Liberation Day — when, thanks to the Allied forces, every last German was removed from the country.

Tibet, 1912 to 1951

Of course Tibet has a history predating 1912 by thousands of years, but 1912 marks the year it officially became a recognized independent country, proclaimed as such by the Dalai Lama. Under a chain of Dalai Lamas, Tibet was a peaceful country. Communist China invaded in 1951, occupying Tibet until it rebelled in 1959, leading China to annex it. Ever heard the chant "Free Tibet"? Tibet is still calling for its independence to this day, and it has many outspoken advocates.

United Arab Republic, 1958 to 1971

Mostly a political union between Egypt and Syria that hoped to thwart Israel, among other things, the UAR didn't last long, as Syria seceded from the republic after only three years. (The fact that Egypt and Syria don't even share a border didn't help with cohesion.) While Egypt continued to be known as the United Arab Republic for another decade, it was dissolved in 1971.

Sikkim, 1642 to 1975

Once a tiny Himalayan monarchy (the kingdom of Sikkim was established in 1642 when Phuntsog Namgyal was crowned the first king), Sikkim was absorbed into India as its 22nd state in 1975. Before becoming part of northern India, Sikkim sat along the Silk Road route to China and was bordered by Nepal, Tibet, Bhutan, and India's West Bengal state.

Ceylon, 1505 to 1972

This South Asian country, better known as Sri Lanka, has a pretty international history, having been a trading hub for Arabs in the 7th century before the Europeans took over. After that Ceylon was ruled by the Portuguese, then the Dutch, and finally the British from 1815 until 1948, when Ceylon gained its full independence.

In 1972, it changed its name to Sri Lanka.​

Czechoslovakia, 1918 to 1993

Once a sovereign state in central Europe (surrounded by Austria, Germany, Poland, Ukraine, and Hungary) that declared its independence from the defunct Austro-Hungarian Empire, what was Czechoslovakia peacefully split into two countries — the Czech Republic and Slovakia — in 1993.

After the Austro-Hungarian collapse in 1918,Czechoslovakia was created by combining Austro-Hungarian leftovers — mostly Czech and Slovak lands. It was one of the more prosperous European countries, as well as one of the few with a peaceful, functioning democracy — at least until WWII, when it became occupied by Germany. It was then occupied by the Soviets until that nation disappeared, too. Czechoslovakia thrived once more, but since the Czechs and Slovaks had separate histories, cultures, and values, their split was somewhat inevitable.

East Germany, 1949 to 1990

The wall that separated Berlin and divided East Germany from West Germany was created after WWII, when the Soviets founded the German Democratic Republic in response to the creation of the Federal Republic of Germany by the US, UK, and France in 1949. The 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall meant the end of East Germany, essentially a Soviet satellite state. It was absorbed into the democratic Federal Republic of Germany when Germany reunified in 1990. East Germans had previously lived under strict communist rule.

Yugoslavia, 1918 to 1992

Like Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia was a remnant of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, created after WWI by combining bits of other countries, mostly Hungary and Serbia, and by throwing together a smorgasbord of around 20 different ethnic groups, along with their different cultures, traditions, and values. A kind of democratic monarchy, it was annexed by Germany in WWII until Nazi Germany collapsed. Then Josip Tito, leader of the partisan army during WWII, took over, creating a socialist Yugoslavia under his dictatorship in 1946. Yugoslavia remained socialist until 1992, when it split into Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Serbia, Macedonia, and Montenegro.

SEE ALSO: The most expensive countries for tourists to visit

FOLLOW US: BI Travel is on Twitter!

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 8 travel hacks even frequent fliers don't know

Chinese newspaper People's Daily China tweeted out security camera footage of the moment a giant explosion rocked the Chinese city of Tianjin late Wednesday night.

State broadcaster CCTV reported that the blast — which created a huge mushroom cloud and triggered a quake that could be felt up to six miles away — happened at Tianjin Dongjiang Port Rui Hai International Logistics Co. Ltd., which handles the transport of hazardous goods.

At least seven people are confirmed dead and 300 people were injured in the blast, according to People's Daily. More injuries are expected.

CCTV said no deaths had been reported, adding that there had been two explosions within 30 seconds of each other and that about 100 fire trucks had been sent to the scene.

Tianjin is a major port and industrial city located 72 miles southeast of the capital of Beijing.

A Tianjin resident caught the explosion itself on video:

SEE ALSO: A huge explosion just rocked a major city in China

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Inside the dangerous life of Mexican drug lord 'El Chapo'

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - At least 76 people were killed and 212 wounded on Thursday in a blast claimed by Islamic State in Baghdad's Sadr City, police and medical sources said, one of the biggest attacks on the capital since Haider al-Abadi became prime minister a year ago.

"A refrigerator truck packed with explosives blew up inside Jamila market at around 6 a.m. (0300 GMT)," police officer Muhsin al-Saedi said. "Many people were killed and body parts were thrown on top of nearby buildings."

A statement circulated online by supporters of Islamic State said the blast had targeted what it called a stronghold of the "charlatan army" and Shi'ite Muslim militias.

The market in the Shi'ite neighborhood is one of the biggest in Baghdad selling wholesale food items. A Reuters witness at the site saw fruit and vegetables mixed with shrapnel littering the blood-soaked blast crater.

Smoke rose from charcoaled debris. Rescuers pulling bodies from the rubble stumbled over sheet metal that had formed the walls and roofs of vendors' stands.

People gathering at the scene cried and shouted the names of missing relatives; others cursed the government.

"We hold the government responsible, fully responsible," witness Ahmed Ali Ahmed said, calling on the authorities to dispatch the army and Shi'ite militias to man checkpoints in the capital.

Abadi took office last summer following the army's collapse in the face of Islamic State's takeover of the northern city of Mosul that left the Baghdad government dependent on militias, many funded and assisted by neighboring Iran, to defend the capital and recapture lost ground.

Security forces and militia groups are fighting Islamic State in Anbar province, the sprawling Sunni heartland in western Iraq. In Baghdad, Abadi has proposed sweeping reforms aimed at reducing corruption and patronage, the biggest changes to the political system since the end of U.S. military occupation.

(Additional reporting by Saif Hameed and Reuters TV in Baghdad and Omar Fahmy in Cairo; Writing by Stephen Kalin; Editing by Louise Ireland and Robin Pomeroy)

Join the conversation about this story »

Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump's vague strategy to combat Islamic State extremists in the Middle East isn't very likely to work.

A top US general, who commanded troops in Iraq from 2008 to 2010, on Wednesday explained the holes in Trump's strategy, The Washington Post reports.

Earlier this week, billionaire real-estate developer Trump said he would send American troops to Iraq to target the Islamic State (also known as ISIS, ISIL, and Daesh), adding that the US would "knock the hell out of them" in "every place where they have oil."

"They have great money because they have oil," Trump said.

"I would knock out the source of their wealth, the primary sources of their wealth, which is oil," he continued. "And in order to do that, you would have to put boots on the ground. I would knock the hell out of them, but I'd put a ring around it and I'd take the oil for our country."

When reporters at a briefing on Wednesday asked Gen. Ray Odierno, the outgoing Army chief of staff, whether he disagreed with Trump's strategy, he said: "I do, I do. Right now, I do."

Trump's strategy is rather simplistic and shortsighted, Odierno suggested, adding that other countries in the Middle East also needed to be part of the solution.

"The problem we've had is we've had outcomes, but they've been only short-term outcomes because we haven't properly looked at the political and economic side of it," Odierno said Wednesday at a press briefing.

"It has got to be three that come together. And if you don't do that, it will not solve the problem, and that is what I continue to look at."

Trump's understanding of ISIS' finances doesn't seem to be very complete either. While ISIS does make millions of dollars from oil, the biggest slice of the group's budget most likely comes from taxing the people under its control. And this source of wealth is harder for international actors to control.

Analysts at the nonprofit RAND Corporation estimated that in 2014, ISIS raked in $600 million from extortion and taxation, $500 million in money stolen from Iraqi banks, and $100 million from oil.

The US has been targeting ISIS' oil revenues and donations from "overseas benefactors" in an effort to cripple the terror group, but that still leaves ISIS free to collect taxes, as The Wall Street Journal reported in June.

"ISIS makes most of its money from plunder,"Jonathan Schanzer, vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Business Insider in May. "We’re seeing that over and over again. They go from one town to the next and knock over a bank or several banks and go house to house and extract whatever is of value."

"It's a racket," Schanzer said. "And that's how ISIS continues to survive and thrive."

Trump's oil-focused strategy also doesn't address the tactics ISIS has been using to entrench itself in communities and establish a long-term presence in the Middle East.

ISIS has claimed territory across Syria and Iraq, forcing those who stay in those areas to pay taxes to the jihadist militants, sometimes in return for government-like services.

For example, in Palmyra, the ancient Syrian city ISIS militants overran in May, ISIS fixed the city's power plant, turned on the water pumps, and handed out free bread to residents.

This isn't the first time Trump has talked a big game on ISIS.

In June, he said: "Nobody would be tougher on ISIS than Donald Trump — nobody. I will find the General Patton or I will find General MacArthur. I will find the right guy. I will find the guy that's going to take that military and make it really work."

SEE ALSO: The ISIS economy just got a huge boost

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Inside the dangerous life of Mexican drug lord 'El Chapo'

As eastern Ukraine is experiencing some of its heaviest fighting since the Minsk II agreements were signed in February, a captured Russian army major tells Euronews there are about 2000 Russian servicemen fighting in Eastern Ukraine.

Vladimir Starkov is currently held in a detention center in Kiev after being intercepted three weeks ago with a truck full of ammunition.

He was driving the truck from Donetsk to Yasne, a small village south of the separatist stronghold of Donetsk when he was arrested.

Starkov, who is being charged with terrorism, explained to Euronews that he was recruited to help separatists in Eastern Ukraine. He was in charge of weapon accountability.

“At the time I was detained, I was a regular serviceman in the armed forces of the Russian Federation with the rank of Major," Starkov told Euronews. "I was chief of missile and artillery weapons service in the military unit in the Russian city of Novocherkassk."

He also told Ukrainian security services that about 2,000 Russian servicemen are deployed in Ukraine at the moment, and that like himself, many did not volunteer.

“Senior officers gathered us in a conference room and announced that our positions would be the same as promised, but we should do our military service in Ukraine: in the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics," he said. "It was forbidden to inform our relatives about this." 

Once he was arrested, Starkov tried to call his family but couldn't get through to them. The same happened when Euronews tried to call them.

The Russian Defense Ministry and Russian Embassy in Kiev both did not respond to Euronews’ request to comment on Starkov’s identity. Although Russia has consistently denied sending servicemen to Ukraine, many reports contradicting their statements have surfaced.

The conflict with Russia in eastern Ukraine started in early 2014 following unrests in Kiev over policies that would have isolated Ukraine from the EU and brought it closer to Russia.

The unrests eventually led to the ousting of Ukraine's Kremlin-friendly then-President Viktor Yanukovych. The fighting started escalating following the annexation of Crimea by Russia in March 2014.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Tom Hardy makes a crazy transformation playing identical twins in this new gangster movie