A team of civilian employees from the Aviation Center of Excellence at Fort Rucker, Alabama, have developed a phone app that will help soldiers and civilians survive an active-shooter response situation, the Army announced on July 12.

The final details of the app, the winning entry in a recent contest hosted by the Army Training and Doctrine Command, are still in flux, but the Army claims it will double as both an educational tool and a means of quickly connecting users to emergency response personnel.

Taking into account the frantic stress of suddenly finding oneself in a life-or-death situation, the app was designed to be as user-friendly as possible: Once opened, a single tap of a button will access the emergency dialer. The app then instructs users on what to do as they wait for help to arrive.

“If adrenaline kicks in and they forget what to do in the moment, all of that information is right there in front of them,” said Matt MacLaughlin of the TRADOC Senior Mobile Training Development center. “It should help everybody respond to that situation in the fastest manner possible.”

U.S. military installations have been targeted by lone gunmen on numerous occasions over the years, often with devastating results. In 2013, 34-year-old civilian contractor Aaron Alexis open fired at the Washington Navy Yard in Washington D.C. Alexis fatally shot a total of 12 people before being killed by police, making the incident the second deadliest mass murder on a U.S. military base in history. The deadliest shooting occurred in 2009, when Maj. Nidal Hasan, an Army psychiatrist and Islamic extremist, went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood that left 13 people dead.

The active shooter response app competition was part of a broader effort by the Army to modernize the way it disseminates information. That effort is being lead by TRADOC Capability Manager — Mobile, or TCM Mobile, which, according to the Army, has so far developed 80 different apps, including ones for sexual harassment prevention, combat training, and suicide prevention. All of the apps are available at the Army’s mobile app store, the TRADOC Application Gateway.

“All these applications have the necessary and vital information that will save lives, time, and educate those with little or no training on active-shooter response situations,” said Capt. Dylan Gallagan, operations officer at the Army Office of the Provost Marshal General.

The winning entry of the active-shooter response app competition was judged based on “contest and functionality as well as design and overall user experience,” explained TCM Instructional Design Specialist Patty Dobbins. The app walks users through various steps of how to respond to an active shooter, all the way up to when law enforcement arrives.

“We’re going to try to think for you,” MacLaughlin said. “Because there’s situations where you won’t have time to think.”

SEE ALSO: This new laser-guided missile could make the Army's grenade launcher more deadly

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: WATCH: President Trump responds to a shooting at a congressional baseball practice in Virginia

The Army knew Sgt. 1st Class Ikaika Kang had shown support for Islamic State years ago. It even took away his security clearance for a while.

But he stayed in the service, deploying to Afghanistan in 2013.

Then, last weekend, the FBI arrested the 34-year-old on terrorism charges following a yearlong investigation, shortly after Kang declared his loyalty to the terrorist group and exclaimed that he wanted to “kill a bunch of people,” according to authorities.

The case highlights the challenges investigators face with protecting the public from a potentially dangerous actor on one hand and gathering sufficient evidence to enable prosecution on the other.

Kang is on record making pro-Islamic State comments and threatening to hurt or kill other service members back in 2011, according to an FBI affidavit filed Monday in federal court.

The Army revoked his security clearance in 2012, but gave it back to him the following year. Last year, the Army called the FBI when it “appeared that Kang was becoming radicalized,” the affidavit said.

Retired Army judge and prosecutor Col. Gregory A. Gross said he was perplexed that the Army allowed Kang to remain a soldier even after his favorable comments toward the Islamic State group.

But Gross said the Army may have decided Kang was just mouthing off and was not a threat.

Gross served as the initial judge in the court martial of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who killed 13 people and wounded more than 30 in a 2009 shooting at Fort Hood, Texas. He said Tuesday he was concerned by the similarities between Kang and Hasan’s case.

“He was making all these statements, and giving these presentations,” said Gross, who is currently a civilian defense attorney for military service members.

Lt. Col. Curtis J. Kellogg, a spokesman for the 25th Infantry Division, declined to comment, citing the ongoing investigation.

Kang’s court-appointed lawyer, Birney Bervar, said his client may suffer from service-related mental health issues of which the government was aware but neglected to treat. He declined to elaborate.

Noel Tipon, an attorney in military and civilian courts, said there’s nothing in the Army manual on removing soldiers from the service that would address allegations like speaking favorably about a group like Islamic State.

He suspects the FBI wanted Kang to stay in the Army while they investigated whether he had collaborators.

“They probably said ‘let’s monitor it and see if we can get a real terrorist cell,’ ” said Tipon, who served in the Marine Corps.

The FBI said its investigation showed Kang was acting on his own.

Spokesman Arnold Laanui said the probe took nearly a year given the evidence that needed to be collected and the constitutional rights that needed to be protected.

“These tend to be very meticulous and time-consuming matters,” Laanui said. Public safety, was at the forefront of the case, he said.

The FBI outlined its evidence against Kang in a 26-page affidavit filed Monday. It includes allegations that Kang filmed a combat training video for Islamic State and bought a drone he believed would be sent to the Middle East to help the group’s fighters.

Agents said none of the military documents — classified and unclassified — that Kang gave to people he believed were affiliated with Islamic State ever got to the group.

Kang’s father told Honolulu television station KHON and the Star-Advertiser newspaper his son may have had post-traumatic stress disorder. Kang told the newspaper he became concerned after his son’s return from Afghanistan. He said his son was withdrawn.

Kang enlisted in the Army in December 2001, just months after the Sept. 11 attacks. He served in South Korea from 2002 to 2003. He deployed to Iraq from March 2010 to February 2011 and Afghanistan from July 2013 to April 2014.

Kang was scheduled to appear in court Thursday for a detention hearing.

SEE ALSO: The FBI reportedly arrested a US soldier on suspicion of connections to ISIS

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Watch Sen. Lindsey Graham grill Trump’s nominee for FBI director on Trump Jr.'s contact with a Russian lawyer

President Donald Trump is considering a lobbyist for defense contractor Raytheon, Mark Esper, for the position of Secretary of the Army, a person familiar with the matter said.

Before Esper joined US missile-maker Raytheon in 2010, he held posts at Aerospace Industries Association and the US Chamber of Commerce.

Esper is Raytheon's vice president of government relations. A Raytheon representative declined to comment.

Esper will be Trump's third nomination for Army secretary. 

Trump's first pick for Army secretary was business executive Vincent Viola. He withdrew his consideration in February because of his financial holdings. 

His second pick was Mark Green, who also withdrew himself from consideration after making controversial statements about Islam, transgender rights, and gay marriage.

SEE ALSO: Trump's pick for Army secretary withdraws his nomination

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The US spent $611 billion on its military in 2016 — more than the next 8 countries combined

A little more than a year after she married, Tiffany Smiley walked into a hospital room to tell her husband he was blind.

A car bomb in Mosul, Iraq, had sent shrapnel into Army Maj. Scott Smiley's eyes as he was serving as an infantry platoon leader and ultimately led him to this bed at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. He had been deployed six months — six months that Tiffany endured catching glimpses of him in reports from an embedded Fox News journalist. She'd watch and wonder what reality she'd fallen into as explosions boomed in the background of the shots.

When she wasn't watching the news, Tiffany was working as a nurse. But as she went about life in the US, it felt like no one else was paying attention.

"At the time, I was shocked," she told Business Insider. "We are at war — and people don't even know or care."

Her experience isn't uncommon. The US military has become more isolated from civilian life than at any period in the country's recent history.

Today, less than half of 1% of the US population is active duty. In 1991, that percentage was twice as high, at roughly 0.8%. In 1969, at the peak of US involvement in Vietnam, almost 2% of the population was active duty, and in 1945, during World War II, it was almost 9%.

'Shallow' understandings

Doctors and Veterans Affairs administrators were pushing Tiffany to sign papers that would retire Scott from active duty. Tiffany made a radical choice: She refused.

"I had walked in and told him he was going to be blind the rest of his life," she said. "And then the doctors and social workers and VA administrators were then asking me to walk in and tell him I had signed the paperwork to retire him from the very thing that gave him purpose."

Instead, Scott became the first blind active-duty Army officer.

"For Scotty to have a purpose and to surround himself with people we had this in common with — it doesn't mean that this wasn't a struggle for us, but there was a level of understanding anywhere, at any job he went to" within the military, Tiffany said. "You were still there with people who understood your struggle or your journey."

Few outside the military could relate. So both Tiffany and Scott decided they'd rather Scott be blind in the military.

A study commissioned in 2013 by Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who was at the time a fellow at the Hoover Institution, a think tank, showed that most Americans had a positive but "shallow" view of the military. Most Americans said they supported the military, but when they were asked specifics about policy issues and how the military works, respondents were more likely to answer "no opinion" or "don't know."

"It's not malicious on either side; it's just the size of the military," said Chuck Hodges, the senior director of events and programs at the veterans' group Hiring Our Heroes. "And then what do we do to ourselves? We lock ourselves in our beautiful gated communities, and we don't go outside, and we don't let people come inside."

It's a self-perpetuating cycle: The US's all-volunteer military is relatively small, forcing those who are serving to look to one another for understanding and support — which, in turn, deepens the division between those in the armed forces and those who've never served.

Connecting with the civilian nation takes effort. Hodges always lived off military posts, meaning all of his neighbors were civilians. He also took on jobs with civilian coworkers while he was serving in the Army, including a role as chair of the Military Science Department at Duke University from 2005 to 2007.

Sometimes, proximity highlights division. At Duke, Hodges had colleagues who felt certain in their knowledge about the war in Iraq — until he shared his on-the-ground experience, fresh off a yearlong deployment. His coworkers found it eye-opening, and Hodges saw chances to bridge the gap when necessary.

Hodges remembers two students who climbed a rock wall set up at Duke's ROTC program recruitment, intending to protest. Hodges told ROTC cadets not to worry about the duo, who clung, chanting, at the top of the wall — they "didn't have much upper-body strength," he said.

"They came down, and I think they were expecting confrontation. I said, 'Hey, gentlemen, I really want to thank you guys for exercising your First Amendment rights that these men and women beside you are going to spend the next part of their career defending,'" he said, laughing. He then would go out of his way to say hi to the protesters whenever he saw them on campus.

Military spouses like Amanda Crowe, who now works at Hiring Our Heroes, say friends and acquaintances are often well-meaning but unhelpful when they say things like "I just don't think I could do that all the time — you know, long-distance with your spouse or being away from family."

She says it's hard to communicate how that feels.

"On one hand, you just learn to deal with it," she said. "But on the other hand, you never get used to it."

Eventually, retirement comes — a transition when, for many, the civil-military divide is starkest.

Reentering civilian life

In a 2011 Pew Research Center study, roughly one in four veterans described reentry into civilian life as somewhat or very difficult. For veterans who served after 9/11, that figure was 44%.

The transition can be complicated by traumatic experiences while serving and a lack of higher education. Finding employment can be a challenge.

"All companies say they're veteran-friendly, and to that, I say: 'Well, congratulations. You and every other company in the United States of America have that mantra on there,'" Hodges said. "The true distinguisher is if you're a veteran-ready company."

Some worry that employers won't understand how service translates to the civilian world or will rely on stereotypes when hiring. Without proper training, Hodges said, a junior staffer could look at a résumé and think: "Hmm, military. My cousin's brother's sister was in the military — maybe not."

"They don't understand the amazing capabilities of the military family to some extent," said Tiffany Smiley, who believes military spouses' talents are often misunderstood, as they crisscross the country — and the world — for their spouses' careers.

"For me, how do I put on a résumé that I moved eight times in 10 years, and I had babies all over the United States, and my husband flourished in his career, and I started my business?" she said. "How do I put that on paper to take into an interview so someone is going to understand the assets I bring to the table?"

Some employers believe combat has left veterans "broken," further hurting their prospects.

While 11-20% of veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom have post-traumatic stress disorder in a given year, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs, Hodges and others argue that pushing the narrative of the psychologically scarred veteran hurts service members across the board. With a shallow understanding of what PTSD entails, employers may shy away from hiring any veterans out of fear one would "snap" in the workplace.

However, there's indication these stereotypes are fading from the workplace. While the unemployment rate for post-9/11 veterans, at 5.1% last month, still outpaces that of the general workforce, at 4.4%, it has fallen significantly in recent years after peaking at 15.2% in January 2011.

"We're tipping the scale a little bit on reintegrating our veterans," Tiffany said.

Bridging the gap

The Smileys are currently transitioning to post-military life themselves; Scott retired two years ago.

The loss of a supportive community and the "little things" military communities offer — such as childcare or a car ride for Scott — means the move hasn't gone exactly the way Tiffany planned. Contrary to Tiffany's hope that retirement would mean the end of relocations, the family recently moved to Seattle to be closer to their family.

Still, she's optimistic — for both her family and a country that better bridges the gap between military and civilian.

Tiffany is now speaking around the US to raise awareness about issues surrounding veterans and military spouses. In 2010, she and Scott published a book, "Hope Unseen," based on their experiences. She's trying to bring her message to a wider audience, meeting with Ivanka Trump to push for legislation supporting military families. In April, Tiffany spoke at a bank-run event about how and why it should recruit veterans.

"I feel like now more than ever that gap is being bridged, for our personal life and daily interactions and a national level," she said.

SEE ALSO: America is less divided than you may think — more in our series

DON'T MISS: Could Texas Republicans save the planet?

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: A mother and daughter stopped speaking after Trump was elected — here's their emotional first conversation 6 months later

The US Army’s highly secretive counterterrorist unit, 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment Delta, is without a doubt among the best counterterrorism units in the world.

While Delta is extremely well known, if only by its name, it wasn’t actually the first American counterterrorist force in existence. That honor goes to a different unit — now long lost to history — known as “Blue Light.”

Colonel Charlie Beckwith, a former Green Beret and the brains behind 1st SFOD-D, discussed the parallel history of Blue Light in his co-written book, “Delta Force.” Beckwith, after serving an exchange tour with the British Special Air Service, returned to the US with an idea for a dedicated counterterrorist unit, similar to the SAS.

With terrorism on the rise throughout the 1970s, it became imperative for the US military to create a force that would deal with terror threats with precision and extreme effectiveness.

The firebrand colonel would go on to outline his concept to the Pentagon, particularly Army generals and fellow colonels with enough sway to allocate funding for such a unit. Beckwith encountered resistance — especially from “old guard” officers who disagreed with allowing Delta to exist on its own with its own funding.

Rather, they felt that Delta needed to remain within an already established pecking order in the asymmetric warfare community — the US Army’s Special Forces.

Despite its official title, Delta Force had absolutely nothing to do with Army Special Forces Operational Detachments, also known as “A-Teams.” The title was just another vaguely-misleading cover for the unit’s real purpose.

Delta, instead, would have a direct line through the Department of Defense to the president’s office, circumventing Special Forces altogether. Further incensing the brass was the fact that Delta would be given free rein to recruit whoever interested them, including experienced Green Berets from the groups.

Inner-Army politicking quickly led to Special Forces brass deciding it would create a counterterrorist unit of its own, ostensibly as an interim solution while Delta was getting up to speed, but with the inward hopes of it being a more permanent fixture.

The new unit — Blue Light —  was staffed with commandos brought in directly from 5th Special Forces Group’s 2nd Battalion into a subordinate unit. There, they would be trained in an array of skills necessary for counterterrorist mission and be readied for real-world operations. Colonel Bob “Black Gloves” Mountel  would be responsible for helming the new unit in its infancy.

Blue Light would only be equivalent to a company-sized element of troops, but would still draw its funding from Special Forces, and would push its members through further airborne and dive training, weapons courses and more.

It was assumed that because Green Berets were already highly-trained for asymmetric warfare, they would be ready to fight far quicker than Delta.

In the meanwhile, Beckwith and his cadre got to work designing and training the founding members of Delta Force, still very aware of the potential for Blue Light to completely take over their mission and tank 1st SFOD-D before it could even get off the ground.

Blue Light was beefed up with the presence of veteran operatives with significant combat experience under their belts, including Joseph Cincotti, a Vietnam-era Green Beret who would later go on to head up the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, and who was responsible for creating the curriculum all Special Forces candidates undergo today.

In their book, “Special Forces: A Guided Tour of US Army Special Forces,” authors Tom Clancy and John Gresham claim that Blue Light was somewhat handicapped from the start. While Delta was designed to operate in every conceivable environment, using a multitude of mission-relevant skills, Blue Light was, in reality, only prepared for a few contingencies.

Little by little, Delta Force took shape at Fort Bragg, NC, and by the end of the 1970s, Delta was ready for action. Bragg was also the home of Blue Light, and the rivalry between the two counterterrorist units was palpable. Former operator Eric Haney discusses the animosity between Blue Light and the 1st SFOD-D in his book, “Inside Delta Force.”

When Delta was declared fully operational, Blue Light faded into the shadows, eventually being disbanded in 1978. Its former members were either transferred to other units within the Army’s various Special Forces groups, or decided to retire altogether.

Beckwith, not willing to let an opportunity pass, extended invites to Blue Light commandos to try out for Delta Force, and at least four of the former counterterrorist unit’s operatives successfully passed selection and the arduous Operator Training Course to become Delta Force operators.

Former Blue Light officers would later play a part in planning Operation Eagle Claw, the failed mission to rescue American hostages in Iran in 1980.

SEE ALSO: 11 weapons used by Russia's elite Spetsnaz operators

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The inventor of Roomba has created a weed-slashing robot for your garden

The US Army soldier took a deep breath before hitting the button that sent the email to more than 200 fellow troops.

"All considered, I am, and have been, traversing what is essentially a personal matter, but is something I must address publicly," the email stated. "I am transgender."

The April 13 email officially ended the secret that burned inside Capt. Jennifer Sims, who was known as Jonathan Sims. But the feeling of relief swiftly turned to unease last week after President Donald Trump tweeted that transgender people were no longer welcome in the U.S. military.

"I read the tweets while I was at work and you know it was devastating because I still have work to do and here I am reading basically what sounds like the president of the United States — who is the commander in chief, he is the ultimate boss of the military — telling me and anybody else that is transgender that we are fired," Sims said.

Pentagon officials say the policy will remain unchanged without official White House guidance. But for Sims, the uncertainty has been upsetting.

"So in the initial moments after the tweet, I saw myself forced into the state that I was in before I started transitioning — a state of depression, exhaustion and inability to enjoy things," said Sims, 28, who spoke to The Associated Press on her own behalf and not on that of the Army.

The reversal of the Obama administration policy that allows transgender people to serve openly and receive military medical coverage for transitioning from one gender to another also could affect her physically.

Sims has been on hormone therapy by her military doctor since November. If she interrupts the treatment, her body will revert to being male.

"It would be very difficult to have to go through that," said Sims, who is based at Hohenfels, a U.S. Army garrison in the German state of Bavaria.

Growing up in Minnesota and Florida, Sims, a high school football player, never felt comfortable being male. The son and grandson of military veterans quietly came to terms with identifying as a woman a year after joining the Army R.O.T.C., but outwardly kept it a secret "because I wanted to continue serving," Sims said.

Sims stopped socializing, feeling drained over worries about being masculine enough, and instead focused on work, serving in Afghanistan, Indonesia and Germany. Her sister, Natasha Sims, 24, said she saw "emptiness" in her eyes.

After the Defense Department announced in 2015 that it was considering allowing transgender troops to serve openly, Sims told Natasha and their parents. When the policy became official in June 2016, Sims said she felt the meaning of the word freedom personally after spending years fighting for it for her country.

"It was the best day of my life really," Sims said.

Sims made an appointment with the behavioral health office, was given a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and started hormone therapy in November.

Five months later, she decided to tell fellow troops.

She first told her two closest colleagues, Capt. Brandon Shorter and another infantry officer.

They were at a loss for words.

After Shorter got home, allowing it to sink in, he texted Sims about how that was brave.

"Infantry officers are best described as brutish. So Capt. Sims pulled me and another brute aside face to face. That took a lot of courage and that's the first thing that went through my mind, mixed in with surprise," Shorter said.

Sims then announced the "personal change" to more than 200 other troops.

It was not an emotional email. The seasoned military officer wrote how a lifetime of discomfort had peaked three years ago. Sims meticulously explained gender dysphoria, announced she was Capt. Jennifer Sims, not Jonathan, and outlined the steps she would take to fully transition to a woman.

"Officially in DEERS, my gender will remain male until my medical transition is complete, which means I will still comport to male standards and use male facilities," she wrote, referring to the acronym for the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System, a kind of HR database for U.S. military personnel.

"While it is my preference for people to refer to me with female pronouns, if you are uncomfortable with this, there is no requirement to do so, I only respectfully request you refer to me by my proper name, Captain Sims," the email stated.

Sims assured her unit the change "if anything, will only make me more productive and capable, as I no longer have to live two personas."

Five soldiers sent emails back with words of encouragement. Most didn't respond. For a few days, there were murmurs of "hey did you see the email?"

The force had just undergone training explaining what was expected in regards to transgender soldiers.

Sims is the first transgender person Shorter has known.

The unit is basically full of "young men wanting to chew on nails and prove how tough they are and rightly so since they are infantry men," Shorter said. There are only about eight women among the 500 soldiers in the battalion.

He had a lot of questions "being naturally curious and wanting to be a good friend because we didn't really have a personal relationship. He's, excuse me, she's — see I still slip up sometimes — a single captain, I'm married with two daughters. Our lives are different."

Shorter, 32, of Alanson, Michigan, describes himself as conservative. He said he struggles with his beliefs about what's appropriate. An assistant operations officer for the battalion, Shorter is concerned about how Sims — whom he considers to be the best signal officer he's seen in the Army — cannot deploy while undergoing medical procedures.

But Shorter, speaking on his own behalf and not that of the Army, said he would be "incredibly disappointed" if Sims were kicked out.

After Trump's tweet, a few soldiers, including Shorter, asked Sims how she was doing. She didn't know what to say.

Her pills will run out in three months. Doctors recommend 12 months of hormone therapy before surgery. The cost of her surgery can run close to $50,000, which Sims was expecting the military would help cover.

Army officials told her nothing will change without official guidance.

"I had waited so long just to be able to tell the world this is who I am," Sims said.

SEE ALSO: Meet Kristin Beck, the transgender Navy SEAL hero fighting Trump’s proposed trans ban

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The most persuasive phrase in the human language

FORT BELVOIR, Va. -- In the next 18 months or so, the Army expects to field two new systems to dismounted Soldiers that will allow for more rapid acquisition of targets, even those hidden by darkness, smoke or fog.

First out of the gate will be the Enhanced Night Vision Goggle III, expected to be fielded sometime between April and June of 2018. Shortly after, the Army hopes to field the Family of Weapons Sights - Individual, between January and March of 2019.

The FWS-I and ENVG III are unique in that the FWS-I, which would be mounted on a Soldier's weapon, wirelessly transmits its sight picture to the ENVG III, which a Soldier wears on his helmet.

Additionally, the ENVG combines thermal imaging with more common night vision image intensification technology, which is recognizable by the green image it creates.

Under starlight, targets may blend in with the background. But with the thermal capability overlaid on night vision, targets can't hide in smoke or fog, they "really pop out with that contrast," said Dean Kissinger, an electronics engineer who is currently assigned to Program Product Manger Soldier Maneuver Sensors at Program Executive Office Soldier here.

Lt. Col. Anthony Douglas, who serves as product manager for Soldier Maneuver Sensors at PEO Soldier, said the two sensors not only help dismounted Soldiers better see targets, but by paring the two wirelessly -- allowing what the weapon-mounted sight is seeing to be beamed directly to the Soldier's eye -- also helps the Soldier acquire a target faster.

RAPID TARGET ACQUISITION

"The capability gap that we were tasked with [closing] by developing this was the rapid target acquisition capability," Douglas said. "We are allowing the Soldier to actually see what is on their weapons sight, saving them time from having to bring the weapon to his eye."

Master Sgt. Lashon Wilson, the senior enlisted advisor for product manager Soldier Maneuver Sensors, explained how the system will work, and make it easier for a Soldier to acquire a target.

"This weapon-mounted system talks wirelessly to the smart battery pack that is on the Soldier's head, that then transmits a signal to the ENVG III, which now displays a reticle onto the Soldier's optic," Wilson said. "So now what this does is, while the Soldier is on patrol and he has his ENVG III on and he is looking, he has a greater field of view of what is going on in the battlefield."

Soldiers wearing the ENVG III, which is mounted on their helmet, can choose to see both night-vision imagery and thermal imaging as well in their goggle. But they can also choose to see the image coming off the FWS-I that is mounted on their rifle.

A variety of modes allows Soldiers to see in their goggle only the image from the ENVG III itself, only the image from the FWS-I, or a combination of the two. Using a "picture-in-picture" mode, for instance, the image from their FWS-I is displayed at the bottom right of the image that is coming from the goggle.

In another mode, however, if the FWS-I on the rifle and the ENVG III on the Soldier's helmet are both pointed in the same direction and seeing essentially the same thing, then the image from the FWS-I can project a reticle into the goggle. The Soldier can see the full image of what his goggle normally sees, but a circle representing the reticle from the FWS-I is overlaid onto that image, letting the Soldier know where his rifle is pointed. What this means is the Soldier doesn't need to actually shoulder his weapon to acquire a target. That saves time for the Soldier in acquiring that target.

"We are saving him three to five seconds, and increasing their situational awareness on the battlefield," Douglas said.

Additionally, because the reticle is projected onto what the Soldier is already seeing in his goggle -- a much wider view of his environment than what he would see if he looked through his rifle scope -- he is able to acquire a target while maintaining situational awareness of what else is going on around him.

STEEP LEARNING CURVE

At Fort Belvoir, members of the press were allowed to shoot an M-4 rifle that was equipped with the FWS-I, while wearing a helmet equipped with the ENVG III.

Several man-shaped targets were spaced out in the firing lane, each equipped with thermal blankets to simulate body heat. A pair of fog machines simulated battlefield smoke to make it difficult to acquire those targets using only day optics. Using night vision goggles alone, some of the targets could not be seen. But when combined with the thermal imaging capabilities built into the ENVG III and FWS-I, those targets were easily visible.

Using the system proved a bit challenging, however. When looking through the goggle, which was at one point displaying the image transmitted from the rifle-mounted FWS-I, it was hard to tell if it was the helmet that was crooked, the ENVG III that was crooked, or the shooter's own head that wasn't on quite straight.

"The gun is tilted," Wilson confirmed. He served as a trainer for members of the press who were allowed to shoot.

Maj. Kevin Smith, who serves as the assistant product manager for FWS-I, said there is a "steep learning curve," for the system.

"We just got through with the tests with the 4th Infantry Division out of Fort Carson, Colorado, back in June," he said. "We only spent about 40 hours of in-classroom training. But we also spent about a week on the range or so. That's where the Soldiers were really starting to get it and understand it and feel it, on the range."

Smith said one such training event was held at Fort Carson, and two were held at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington.

"Once they get comfortable with it, they really love it," Smith said. "One Soldier, a noncommissioned officer who didn't like it at first, later on during the last test we did, asked me when are we getting this fielded. He said he wanted it now. They want to take them to war and they want to use them."

A FAMILY OF SIGHTS

The soon-to-field FWS-I is meant for the M4 and M16 rifles, and can mount on those rifles in front of day sights that have already been bore-sighted, Kissinger said. What this means is that Soldiers can pop the FWS-I onto and off of their rifle without having to remove their day sights first.

The FWS-I will also work with the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, the M141 Bunker Defeat Munition, and the M136 AT4 Light Anti-Tank Weapon.

Kissinger said the FWS-I actually provides capability to both light and medium weapons. In the past, there had been sights fielded for both types of weapons. Now that FWS-I provides capability to both, he said, there will be less variations in weapons sights, and a smaller logistics trail, he said.

More capability is also coming to this "family" of weapons sights, Douglas said. There will be a crew-served variant and a sniper variant as well. Both are still under development, he said.

Both the FWS-I and the ENVG III are currently in low-rate initial production. The Army hopes to buy 36,000 of the FWS-I, and about 64,000 of the ENVG III, Smith said. He also said that the new gear is targeted squarely at dismounted Soldiers with infantry brigade combat teams and special operations forces.

For now, he said, he expects it'll be squad leaders and two team leaders within a squad that might first see the FWS-I.

"This is a day or night capability," Douglas said. "We're talking about dismounted Soldiers who would use this. For our mounted soldiers, those on the Stryker or Bradleys ... they do not operate without their thermal on all the time. So we are giving the dismounted Soldier the same capability the mounted Soldiers have."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The biggest mistake everyone makes when eating steak, according to Andrew Zimmern

Two U.S. military personnel suffered minor injuries after their HH-60 Black Hawk helicopter crashed in Afghanistan on the morning of August 1, Operation Resolute Support said in a statement.

The helo “suffered a mechanical issue” during operations near Achin in the country’s eastern province of Nangarhar, making what U.S. Central Command officials characterized as a “hard landing.” Rescue personnel managed to safely evacuate the crew, and ORS is in the process of recovering the downed copter.

The Nangarhar province has become a stronghold for Afghan ISIS offshoot ISIS-Khorasan, and a target for increased U.S. special operations forces activity since the Department of Defense dropped a 21,600 pound GBU-43 Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (or “mother of all bombs”) on an ISIS-K position in April.

The Taliban initially attempted to claim responsibility for the crash, asserting in a statement that militants “opened fire on the helicopter during its landing around 2 a.m., killing everyone aboard and foiling an attempted raid,” according to Stars and Stripes. That claim appears to be hot garbage.

The incident, though relatively minor, underscores a growing problem: Poor upkeep and maintenance of the NATO coalition’s fleet of Black Hawk attack helicopters will likely result in more mechanical failures not just in Afghanistan, but on battlefields across the Middle East and North Africa where U.S.-led forces focus on beating back the rising tide of Islamic militants.

“Evaluators identified safety problems with some H-60 helicopters that required the unit commander to ground (restrict flying) those helicopters,” according to the audit. But “the unit commander did not always allow evaluators to finish the evaluation of additional helicopters because he did not want to ground more helicopters if additional safety problems were identified. As a result, Army pilots and crew could be flying H-60 helicopters with unidentified structural defects.”

Of course, this assessment primarily applies to the Army; the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard all use modified H-60 Black Hawks for various operations. But given the essential nature of the attack copter to counter-insurgency operations in Afghanistan and beyond — as well as the cultural symbolism of a downed Black Hawk, thanks to the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu and journalist Mark Bowden’s account of the campaign in Black Hawk Down— the Army may want to take a harder look at ensuring that mechanical failures like the one that occurred over Achin don’t happen again.

CENTCOM and ORS did not immediately respond to request for comment from Task & Purpose. We will update this story with more information as it becomes available.

SEE ALSO: Trump might stay in Afghanistan for minerals — and it could endanger US national security

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Animated map shows where your bottled water actually comes from

ANKARA (Reuters) - Turkey's Supreme Military Council (YAS) decided on Wednesday to replace the heads of the army, air force and navy, local media reported.

The YAS, which meets every August, held a four-hour meeting chaired by Prime Minister Binali Yildirim on Wednesday. The decisions made during the meeting will be presented to President Tayyip Erdogan for approval.

(Reporting by Tuvan Gumrukcu; Editing by David Dolan)

SEE ALSO: Turkey referendum: What are the main issues and process?

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: There's a place off California's coast called the 'Red Triangle' where over 1/3 of great white shark attacks happen

The U.S. Army has ordered its members to stop using drones made by Chinese manufacturer SZ DJI Technology Co Ltd because of "cyber vulnerabilities" in the products.

An Aug. 2 Army memo posted online and verified by Reuters applies to all DJI drones and systems that uses DJI components or software. It requires service members to "cease all use, uninstall all DJI applications, remove all batteries/storage media and secure equipment for follow-on direction."

The memo says DJI drones are the most widely used by the Army among off-the-shelf equipment of that type.

A Pentagon spokesman said the Army was considering issuing a statement about the policy.

DJI did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The move appears to follow studies conducted by the Army Research Laboratory and the Navy that said there were risks and vulnerabilities in DJI products.

The memo cites a classified Army Research Laboratory report and a Navy memo, both from May as references for the order to cease use of DJI drones and related equipment.

SEE ALSO: Dissident Chinese billionaire says China has 25,000 spies in the US

Join the conversation about this story »

On Monday, President Donald Trump tweeted out a series of attacks on Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal's record during the Vietnam War.

Trump himself had five deferments from service in Vietnam, four were for education, and the fifth was a medical deferment, for a foot condition he described as heel spurs.

We asked podiatric surgeon Dr. Jacqueline Sutera (who has not treated Mr. Trump) to explain the diagnosis. Following is a transcript of the video.

Dr. Jacqueline Sutera: The heel spurs are little calcifications that start to form at the bottom of the heel bone, and in someone who has, like, a very thin fat pad, you might be able to actually feel it, and can cause pain.

They're typically a little bit spiky on x-ray, and so they're kind of pointy. And that can cause irritation to the surrounding tissue in the area, the fascia is right there, that's where the plantar fascia attaches onto the heel bone as well.

So, plantar fasciitis, heel spur syndrome, heel spur, that all really goes together.

People with heel spurs and heel pain, plantar fasciitis, typically have pain when they first get out of bed in the morning. So, shouldn't it feel better when you are resting after a night's sleep? The problem with that and the reason why it happens is because when you're resting, the soft tissue just relaxes and there's a swelling there.

So, then you go to stand up on it with all of your body weight, and it starts that inflammation all over again.

Some people can have heel spurs without heel pain, some people have heel pain without heel spurs, it kind of just is an individual thing and it should be really checked out.

You need an x-ray to diagnose a heel spur.

Join the conversation about this story »

A Pentagon spokesman says the two U.S. soldiers killed Sunday in Iraq were casualties of a U.S. artillery "mishap."

The spokesman, Army Col. Rob Manning, said an Army artillery unit was firing on an Islamic State mortar position "when a mishap occurred." He said there is no indication that IS played a role in the deaths. In addition to the two soldiers killed, five others suffered injuries that Manning said were not life-threatening.

The spokesman said he could provide no other details because the incident is under investigation. The names of those killed have not been publicly released.

When the deaths were announced Sunday, the U.S. military said the incident did not involve enemy fire, but provided no other details.

SEE ALSO: US-backed forces have retaken half of Raqqa from ISIS — Here's what the fighting on the ground looks like

Join the conversation about this story »

For the last two decades, the Army’s protective headgear has gone largely unchanged. But after four years of developing a new ballistics helmet, 111 combat engineers at Joint Base Lewis-McChord are now testing out the Integrated Head Protection System, Army Times reports.

“I’m pretty glad that the Army’s trying to change some things up,” Staff Sgt. James McQuillan, a combat engineer with the 23rd Brigade Engineer Battalion at JBLM, told Army Times. “If we test this out and it ends up working out for us, then it’ll benefit people here in the future.”

The Army had originally planned to give infantry units first crack at the next-generation IHPS. But Zane Smith, the IHPS test officer with Operational Test Command, told Army Times that no infantry soldiers were available. So combat engineers with similar operational mandates were selected as a stand-in.

“We’ll perform a quality-control check right there,” Smith said. “This allows us to keep that process close to the soldiers.”

Task & Purpose reported earlier that the Army has been seeking a helmet to mitigate the risk of traumatic brain injury.

The IHPS is produced by Gentex Corporation, which was was awarded a contract of $1.3 million for Phase 1 development testing of the helmet in 2013. It first entered production in January of 2017.

The headgear, which looks like a motorcycle helmet, is expected to be distributed to all soldiers who deploy by 2020.

It’s not the only new headgear the Army is getting, however. After 15 years without an upgrade, the Army is fielding a new Advanced Combat Helmet, as well. Revision Military was awarded $98 million in March 2017 to provide 293,870 units of the Advanced Combat Helmet Generation II.

Task & Purpose reached out to the Army for comment and will update this story as soon as more information is available.

SEE ALSO: The real story behind that much-hyped ‘Boba Fett’ special ops helmet

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: We may have been wrong about ‘good’ cholesterol all this time

Staff Sergeant Nicholas "Bruce" Davis, a cannon crew member and section chief assigned to C Battery, 1st Battalion, 320th Field Artillery Regiment, 101st Airborne Division Artillery, 101st Airborne Division, has earned a nomination for the Soldier's Medal from his unit for heroism in saving two lives on June 9, 2017.

The Soldier's Medal is a military award that recognizes peacetime acts of valor where a Soldier voluntarily puts himself or herself in personal danger.

On June 9, Davis was driving east on Interstate 24 with his son, Gabriel, and his friend, Katie, in his gray Chevy Silverado. Davis had just filled up the tank and that evening they were on a four-hour drive headed east to Chattanooga.

Davis was one of a multitude of people traveling on the interstate that day. His journey was in parallel to everyone's trip. Lives packed into east and west bound lanes fluttered close to each other at speeds of 70 miles per hour or more -- all moving toward their destinations. 

Normally a trip on the interstate may result in a glance, or less often a smile or wave. Often there is no acknowledgment of the people traveling close by. Usually, the fleeting recognition of others fades away at the next exit or next mismatch in speeds when that moment of proximity dissipates.

For Davis though, this was not a normal evening.

Davis noticed a man on the side of the road near mile marker 23. Looking around, he saw a car overturned on the side of the road.

He suddenly, but safely, pulled his truck over to the side of the road, turned on his hazard lights and went to investigate. At that instant, instead of continuing his trip and passing by a moment in somebody else's life, Davis' life forcefully intersected with Rick and Sharon Steiert's lives.

"I just jumped out and ran up to the car, and on my way up to the car I had noticed an engine fire that started on the engine block up underneath," Davis said. "By the time I got there the guy that was on the highway, walking on the edge of the highway, was by the vehicle as well. I asked him do you have anything to get into the vehicle with and he [said] no."

Davis almost always carries a pocket knife. On the end of his knife is a glass buster, so he moved to the narrow space between the car and the ground. He checked the two people in the car for responsiveness. They were conscious, so he alerted them that he was going to break the window and they covered their faces just before he shattered the glass.

Davis quickly recognized a problem as gasoline poured out of the car.

The accident had flung a gas can from the back of the vehicle into the passenger compartment. It was dangerously close to the engine fire. So he reached in, grabbed the can, and tossed it away from the vehicle. Other bystanders rendering aid moved the container further from the flames.
Someone had also managed to open the door facing up enough for Davis, who was inside the car, to start helping Rick out of the car, as he simultaneously tried to help Sharon exit the vehicle.

"I was on both passengers at that same time, and as soon as I started doing all that the whole car just engulfed in flames," Davis said. "I felt it wrapped around my body and when it did, I turned into 'The Flash.'"

In a burst, he pushed Rick out of the vehicle and dragged Sharon out, but because of the tight space, it took a moment to pull her out.

"She actually caught on fire from her waist down," Davis said. "When I finally dragged her out I noticed it, I felt a burning sensation on my legs. So, I thought my clothes were on fire, but I looked down and [it was] my leg that was on fire. So, I put it out."

Davis was not sure exactly how he put out his legs, but he saw Sharon was still on fire. After a short moment to assess the situation, he took off his shirt and started using it to put out the flames. Another bystander rushed in to assist Davis extinguish the fire on Sharon. With help from a person with a fire extinguisher they put out the flames, but it was difficult because her pants were bunched around her ankles and kept relighting. Then they moved her away from the fire.

Davis and the other bystanders then waited for the ambulances and police to arrive at the scene of the accident. From there, Rick and Davis left for Vanderbilt University Medical Center in the same ambulance after EMTs administered pain medication. A life flight helicopter took Sharon to the hospital.

Davis' friend, Katie, followed him to the hospital with his son. Davis made sure his son was taken care of as he headed to the hospital and he contacted his unit.

At the hospital Davis received treatment for his burns and the doctors monitored him for other injuries.

When Davis saw somebody in need he stepped in without thinking of himself because, in his words, "it was the right thing to do." For his effort he sustained second-degree burns that were nearly third-degree burns over 75 percent of his right leg.

Davis spent seven years in the Army training for any contingency. With two combat tours, one to Afghanistan, and one to Iraq where he recently fought with Iraqi security forces to retake Mosul, Davis was ready. Although he said the situation he found himself in was not the same as a combat situation, the adrenaline was rushing through his system as he provided aid to the couple just the same.

"He's just an all-around good Soldier," said 1st Lt. Charles Trumpfheller, Davis's platoon leader. "He'll do anything for anybody and really I mean he's one of those [noncommissioned officers] who you can count on to get things done."

Trumpfheller said despite his injuries, Davis is working hard to recover and return to duty. Monday was the first day he could do physical training with the unit again and Davis's goal is to go back to leading troops as soon as possible.

Davis, Rick and Sharon all sustained injuries, and Sharon's were severe.

As he left the hospital, Davis was upset because he did not know what happened to the people he had helped rescue. But Rick and Sharon Steiert managed to get in contact with Davis through the doctors, and in the time since the accident they have grown to be close friends.

The Steierts consider Davis a hero and new member of their family. Sharon's children, Britney Balduc and Scott Capodice, are both thankful.

Capodice said words cannot express their gratitude or the emotions he is going through. Since the accident, Davis has called both of them and has visited their parents, Rick and Sharon.

Although the recovery has been hard, Balduc is glad both she and her daughter still have Rick and Sharon.

"I feel like [Davis is] going to be an extension of our family now because he's been out visiting once or twice a week and staying in close contact with my brother and I, and my mom and dad, and you can just tell he cares," Balduc said. "I had a great relationship with her [Sharon] and she's such an influence in my life ... that's a blessing to me and it's something I can never thank Staff Sgt. Davis enough."

"You know he seems to want to have a relationship with my parents, which I think is amazing," Capodice said. "So, I don't know how I look at him besides like another brother that I didn't know was going to have at 36."

For Davis though, his job is not done as he helps Rick and Sharon make it through a difficult recovery that will have an impact on them not only physically, but financially.

"I'm just trying to help them get any kind of donation that anybody can be willing to give, because ... [they] might have been insured and stuff and so the other person might have had insurance that's going to pay for a little bit, but I know how expensive medical bills can get," he said. "I know she's been in [the hospital] over 30 days and she's in ICU getting wound care every day. Physical therapy and multiple surgeries are going to be a lot."

SEE ALSO: A 93-year-old World War II veteran returned a fallen Japanese soldier's flag to his family

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 8 details you might have missed on season 7 episode 4 of 'Game of Thrones'

US military leaders have roundly rebuked the deadly violence that unfolded at the white-nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, last weekend, and a US Marine general specifically called out a former service member believed to be involved with a white supremacist group.

"No place for racial hatred or extremism in @USMC," Gen. Robert Neller, the Marine Corps commandant, tweeted Tuesday, referencing former Marine recruiter Dillon Ulysses, who is believed to have been tied to the white supremacist group, Vanguard America, multiplenews outletsreported on Wednesday. "Our core values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment frame the way Marines live and act," Neller said.

Separately, the official Twitter account for the 82nd Airborne Division, one of the US Army's renowned infantry units, addressed an unrelated image of a man who wore a hat bearing the division's emblem while rendering what appeared to be a KKK salute. The man's identity was not immediately known.

The image has been retweeted about 30,000 times since Saturday, and it circulated across military groups in social-media channels.

"Respectfully, anyone who thinks this man represents our culture and values has never worn the maroon beret...and never will," the 82nd Airborne Division tweeted, referring to the image.

The account added: "Our WWII Airborne forefathers jumped into Europe to defeat Nazism. We know who we are. We know our legacy."

"Anyone can purchase that hat. Valor is earned,"it said.

White nationalists and neo-Nazis descended on Charlottesville over the weekend to protest the planned removal of a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee. A rally Saturday quickly descended into brawls between white supremacists and counterprotesters, and one woman was killed when a driver plowed through a crowd of those opposing the rally. Two police officers who were monitoring the situation died in a helicopter crash.

After choosing in a statement Saturday not to specifically call out white supremacists for their responsibility in the weekend's events, Trump did so in a televised address Monday. But during a freewheeling press conference on Tuesday, Trump returned to his original position, labeling multiple parties as complicit in the Charlottesville unrest and seeming to defend some of those seeking to protest the Confederate statue's removal.

That move has prompted fierce rebukes from Republicans and Democrats, who have condemned Trump and the white nationalists who praised his Tuesday remarks.

Trump has lauded the US military throughout his campaign and early presidency, and he polled favorably among service members during the beginning of his first term.

But his support from the military appeared to wane in recent months. Trump's overall approval hit a new low of 34% on Tuesday, according to a Gallup daily tracking poll.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This post has been updated to more accurately reflect the comments of US military leaders who responded to the Charlottesville rally and events surrounding it.]

SEE ALSO: Social-media users are trying to identify people who attended the violent Charlottesville rally

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This is the helicopter that will replace Marine One

Secretary James Mattis has been heralded as a "warrior monk" for his prodigious knowledge and voracious reading habits.

But Mattis, a retired Marine general, is not the only US military officer who has supplemented his martial knowledge with academic achievement.

In that spirit, the US Army has distributed reading recommendations so soldiers and civilians alike are able "to sharpen their knowledge of the Army’s long and distinguished history, as well as the decisive role played by landpower in conflicts across the centuries."

Below are some of the books recommended by Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley to help better understand the world's current strategic environment, along with his explanations for their inclusion.

SEE ALSO: Mattis and US military leaders are trying to get rid of the worst parts of military service

"A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order," by Richard Haass

"Haass argues for an updated global operating system—call it world order 2.0—that reflects the reality that power is widely distributed and that borders count for less."

"Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century," by P.W. Singer

"Blending historical evidence with interviews of an amazing array of individuals, [Singer] shows how technology is changing not just in how wars are fought, but also in the politics, economics, laws, and the ethics that surround war itself."

"The Tragedy of Great Power Politics," by John J. Mearsheimer

"Contending that states throughout history have been driven to acquire greater power and influence as a means of guaranteeing their own security, [Mearsheimer] concludes that current efforts at engagement and seeking harmonious relations between states will ultimately fail and predicts that the U.S. security competition with a rising China will inevitably intensify."

A war between the world’s largest Democracy and the world’s largest Communist state may not seem likely to the casual observer. But not only is it possible, it’s happened before. Only things were very different back then.

China was facing an economic collapse in the early 1960s in the years following the Great Leap Forward. The country was struggling to feed its people, let alone support an all-out war.

India, on the other hand, was on an economic upturn. Militarily, however, India was unprepared and could only field 14,000 troops, compared to China’s exhaustive manpower.

In 1962, Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong invaded India for granting asylum to the Dalai Lama and not supporting the Chinese occupation of Tibet (Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was an outspoken critic of the occupation). The Chinese won the harsh mountain war, fought without Navies or Air Forces, at 14,000 feet.

Mao later told Sri Lankan and Swedish delegations the war was essentially to teach India a lesson.

SEE ALSO: 'China is not Father Christmas': India's concern about Beijing's expansion grows after a new port deal

Potential causes of a new Sino-Indian war

The 1962 war only lasted a month, resulting in slight border changes and a now-ongoing dispute on just where the border is — namely in two areas called Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh, which could re-spark a conflict today. But any border disputes could turn the mountainous region hot.

The most recent standoff in August 2017 was about an obscure plateau in the Himalayan Doklam Plateau region, which borders India, China, and Bhutan. India supports Bhutan’s claim to the area, while both major powers have scores of troops in the region.

The spark for that standoff is an unfinished road from China.

China also supports India’s arch rival Pakistan, turning any conflict into a potential two-front war. But India doesn’t take it all laying down. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi confronted China’s assertiveness from his first day in office — when he invited the exiled Tibetan government to his swearing-in ceremony.

The two countries clashed along their border several times, including one incident over Tibet in 1967 and another near miss 1987 over Arunachal. There were also smaller incidents in 2013 and 2014 in Ladakh, where India has since loaded the area with infantry, tanks, and reserves to be prepared for any potential aggression from China.

But the very likely spark that could drive the two Asian giants to war could come from a clash over resources. In this case it wouldn’t be over oil, it would be over water. Both countries have an eye on the fresh water and hydroelectric power from the Tsangpo–Brahmaputra River.

Water is not the only resource in question, though. Earlier in 2016, China prevented India’s membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which controls the trade of nuclear material and tech.

Technology and numbers

China and India are now economic powerhouses, 2nd and 7th (respectively) in world GDP rankings. Militarily, India is number four on the GlobalFirepower rankings and boasts the largest standing volunteer army at 1.13 million troops with 21 million in reserve. Ranked number three on the same scale, China’s armed forces have 2.3 million active troops with another 2.3 million in reserve.

China’s technology is superior to India’s, but not by much. The Chinese air forces also vastly outnumber India’s somewhat antiquated air force. The Chinese also have a homegrown version of the F-35, which can outmatch India’s 50-year-old MiG-21s. The Chinese J-20 is currently the best for Chinese air superiority, if it’s operational in time for such a conflict.

India is working with Russia on developing a 5th-generation Sukhoi fighter with capabilities similar to the American F-22. But the Indian air force has been outnumbered and outclassed on many occasions and still came up with a win. Training and experience count for a lot. More on that in a minute.

At the end of 2014, after more than 13 years of combat operations, 9,800 US troops were to remain in Afghanistan.

That number would be reduced by half at the end of 2015 and reduced again at the end of 2016 to a small military contingent attached to the US embassy.

But the Taliban's success on the battlefield and Afghan security forces' poor performance led to a continued US deployment in the country.

At the end of 2016 the US had a force of nearly 10,000 in Afghanistan, though President Barack Obama intended to reduce it to 5,500 in 2017, the Taliban threat caused a change of plans, and 8,400 troops are to remain in Afghanistan during 2017.

President Donald Trump, who has called for the US to pull out of Afghanistan, instead announced Monday that the US would deploy more troops to the war-torn country, coupled with efforts to get Pakistan to crack down on terrorist groups operating along its border with Afghanistan and to get countries in the region, like India, to provide more economic support.

The decision extends the US's nearly 16-year-long fight — longer than any other US foreign war and most other military operations — in Afghanistan.

Recent years have seen that fight settle into what Army Gen. John Nicholson, the top US commander in Afghanistan and the 12th person to hold that job, have called a stalemate — one in which the US is at a disadvantage, according to Defense Secretary James Mattis.

"We are not winning in Afghanistan right now. And we will correct this as soon as possible,"Mattis told the Senate Armed Services Committee in mid-June.

Nicholson said in the past that more US forces may be needed to counter growing outside influence in Afghanistan — from Russia in particular.

In 16 years of operations in and around Afghanistan, the US has lost some 2,200 troops and spent about $110 billion on Afghanistan's reconstruction, more than the cost of the Marshall Plan that reconstruct Europe after World War II.

Washington has allocated more than $60 billion since 2002 to train and equip Afghan troops.

The US money spent in Afghanistan has yielded few lasting results, however. Security in the country remains precarious, and at the end of 2016 the Taliban was thought to control more territory than at any time since 2001.

Below, you can see photos documenting the last 16 years the US's "generational" war in Afghanistan.

SEE ALSO: Trump says he wants to listen to low-ranking soldiers instead of 'lousy' advice from generals for Afghan war strategy

Osama bin Laden is seen at an undisclosed location in this television image broadcast Sunday, October 7, 2001. Bin Laden praised God for the September 11 terrorist attacks and swore America "will never dream of security" until "the infidel's armies leave the land of Muhammad," in a videotaped statement aired after the strike launched Sunday by the US and Britain in Afghanistan.

The US and Britain on October 7, 2001, launched a first wave of air strikes against Afghanistan and then US President George W. Bush said the action heralded a "sustained, comprehensive and relentless" campaign against terrorism.

Eyewitnesses said they saw flashes and heard explosions over the Afghan capital of Kabul in the first phase of what the US has said will be a protracted and wide-ranging war against terrorism and the states that support it. The attack had been prepared since the September 11 suicide attacks on the US. 

Mohammed Anwar, left, and an unidentified boy in Kabul, Afghanistan, display pieces of shrapnel from bombs dropped Monday morning, October 8, 2001.

The US and Britain hit Afghanistan and key installations of the Taliban regime with cruise missiles Sunday night for harboring suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden. Many residents of Afghanistan seem unfazed by the bombing after living in war like conditions for more than 20 years.

Donald Trump surprised international audiences with his announcement that he plans to expand the US military intervention in Afghanistan, without setting an end date. This is a turnaround from Trump’s own campaign rhetoric and Barack Obama’s previous goal of dialing back the US’s military campaign – but on a more fundamental level, it’s a return to business as usual.

One Pakistani journalist described Trump’s move as the start of a “third American-Afghan war”. This marks the US’s third major attempt since September 11, 2001 to deploy the armed forces as their main tool in Afghanistan. Trump’s plan amounts to yet another surge in the American war against the Taliban, and it’s just as likely to face the same pitfalls as previous ones.

Rooting out the Taliban and other local resistance factions has proven almost impossible since 2001, both militarily and otherwise. And more sobering still, this has been the norm in Afghanistan for decades. The country arguably has been consistently at war since 1978, when a Marxist revolution set off a nightmarish chain of events: the Soviet invasion of 1979, ten years of grueling Afghan-Soviet conflict, and a descent into civil war that effectively lasted until 2001.

Foreign intervention has never established a stable Afghan government, nor has it strengthened the nation. Like the Soviets before them, US forces failed to anticipate that Afghans themselves might not just reject Western-oriented nation-building policies, but resist them. Innovations such as the now-abandoned Human Terrain System, which embedded anthropologists in US operations, also failed to help build up crucial local knowledge.

In contrast, foreign intervention has provided ample financial and military support for parties who want to undermine anything resembling a stable Afghan state. After all, the decade-long resistance against the Soviets was armed and supported by the CIA and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency. The Taliban emerged from this resistance, using the training it received when resisting the Soviets in the 1980s to combat the Americans in the 2000s.

Trump says this time will be different: “We are not nation-building again. We are killing terrorists.” But the challenge remains the same as ever. However many “terrorists” are killed, Afghanistan needs some sort of functioning state that can deal with militant threats and earn legitimacy among Afghans themselves. Military intervention cannot guarantee this. It’s actually more likely to undermine the government’s legitimacy and to poison the US’s reputation in the process.

Drawing the line

Meanwhile, like its predecessors, the Trump administration is trying to offload some measure of responsibility onto Afghanistan’s southern neighbor, Pakistan.

Time and again, US policymakers have agreed that the Taliban can’t be rooted out until Pakistan stops lending it a safe haven along its Afghan border. Trump has pledged to do what Bush and Obama could not: force Pakistan to take a tougher stand against not just the Taliban, but other anti-Western groups hiding in its largely autonomous and tribal northwest, among them the militant Haqqani network.

The core of the problem is that Afghanistan refuses to recognize its border with Pakistan. This has dominated regional relations ever since Pakistan’s independence in 1947. The border is effectively fluid, and does little to stop the cross-border movement of terrorist networks.

During the Obama administration, this region was seen as a crucial front in the “War on Terror” and is still seen as a key to the stability of the area. Pakistan in particular worries that without a secure border, it will be vulnerable to the machinations of an axis of Indian allies, the US and Afghanistan included.

Rather than involving India, as Trump suggests, tackling the border dispute head-on could create space for proper dialogue about expelling terror networks while strengthening the region and its governments. Yet in its more than 60-year relationship with Afghanistan and Pakistan, the US has never sought a border agreement. Until one is reached, terrorist groups will never be fully expelled.

But before that can happen, Afghanistan and Pakistan both need governments whose legitimacy is acknowledged and upheld at home and abroad. And that in turn demands the Trump administration to rethink its attitude to what some might indeed call nation-building.

SEE ALSO: France backs Trump pledge to keep US troops in Afghanistan

Join the conversation about this story »

The US military has over 1.3 million men and women on active duty, with more than 450,000 of them stationed overseas.

Many of these stationed service members perform training exercises and other duties at rather safe bases. Then there are others who are deployed to conflict zones like Syria or Iraq or potential "hotspots" like Somalia.

We pulled together the numbers and units from around the military to show you where service members are engaged.

SEE ALSO: After multiple deployments, US special forces may have 'mortgaged the future'

DON'T MISS: A US Marine photographer shot these beautiful portraits of troops overseas

US troops are deployed in hotspots around the world, including places like Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.

Here's a look at some of the most significant deployments for American soldiers.

In Afghanistan, about 8,400 US troops, most of which are US Army soldiers, are authorized to take part in Resolute Support, which aims to train, advise, and assist the Afghan security forces and institutions in their fight against the Taliban and other terrorist networks.

A new report, however, recently revealed that there are actually about 12,000 US troops in the country. The Pentagon then said on Aug. 30 that about 11,000 US troops are in Afghanistan.

In Iraq, about 4,000 to 6,000 soldiers are taking part in Operation Inherent Resolve, which aims to eliminate the Islamic State. Only 5,262 US troops are authorized to be in Iraq, but the actual numbers have been larger for a while as commanders leverage what they call temporary — or "nonenduring"— assignments like the one involving the 82nd Airborne in Mosul.

In Syria, 500 US special forces and 250 Rangers are working in support of Operation Inherent Resolve. The Pentagon is also mulling sending an additional 1,000 US service members to the war-torn country.

A new BuzzFeed News report, however, also said that there are really about 2,000 US forces in Syria — about 850 (including US Marines) then previously thought.

In Kuwait, about 15,000 soldiers are spread among Camp Arifjan, Ahmed Al Jaber Air Base, and Ali Al Salem Air Base. About 3,800 soldiers from the 1st Cavalry Division's 3rd Brigade Combat Team also deployed there late last year.

In Poland, about 3,500 soldiers from the 4th Infantry Division's 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team are stationed as part of Atlantic Resolve, which seeks to halt Russian aggression. These soldiers will help train local forces and provide security, eventually fanning out to other countries like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary to do the same.

In Ukraine, approximately 250 Oklahoma National Guardsmen are training Ukrainian forces in support of Joint Multinational Training Group-Ukraine.

In Somalia, about 40 US soldiers from the 101st Airborne division are assisting the central government in training its forces and fighting the terrorist group al-Shabab.

Of the US Navy's seven fleets, three are deployed in or near potential hotspots around the world.