Representative government has been a luxury that relatively few people have enjoyed throughout human history. 

And while the vast majority of dictators fall short of Hitler- or Stalin-like levels of cruelty, history is rife with oppressors, war criminals, sadists, sociopaths, and morally complacent individuals who ended up as unelected heads of government — to the tragic detriment of the people and societies they ruled. 

Here's a look at 22 brutal dictators that you may not have heard of.

SEE ALSO: The 25 most ruthless leaders of all time

Francisco Solano Lopez (Paraguay, 1862-1870)

Although he became a revered figure in Paraguay decades after his death, Paraguayan president and military leader Francisco Solano Lopez unwisely provoked neighboring Brazil and Argentina by meddling in a civil war in Uruguay in the mid-1860s.

After that war concluded, Brazil, Argentina, and the winning faction in Uruguay secretly agreed to a plan in which they would annex half of Paraguay's territory. 

Lopez rejected the peace terms offered by the "triple alliance," incurring a full-on invasion.

What followed was a devastating conflict in which an overmatched Lopez conscripted child soldiers, executed hundreds of his deputies (including his own brother), incurred steep territorial losses, and triggered an eight-year Argentine military occupation.

By the time of Lopez's death in battle in 1870 and the war's subsequent end, Paraguay's population had plunged from an estimated 525,000 to 221,000, and only 29,000 males over the age of 15 were left alive.

Jozef Tiso (Slovakia, 1939-1945)

A Catholic priest who led Slovakia's fascist moment, Tiso was in charge of one of Nazi Germany's numerous satellite regimes for almost the entirety of World War II.

Although arguably a less energetic fascist than the leaders of comparable Nazi puppet regimes, Tiso led a brutal crackdown after a 1944 anti-fascist rebellion.

He also either facilitated or had first-hand knowledge of the deportation of the vast majority of the country's Jews to Nazi concentration camps.

At the time, Slovakia had a Jewish population of over 88,000. However, by the conflict's conclusion, nearly 5,000 were left in the country.

Döme Sztójay (Hungary, 1944)

Hungarian leader Miklós Horthy had been an ally of Nazi Germany, collaborating with Adolf Hitler's regime in exchange for assistance in restoring Hungarian control over lands the country had lost as a result of World War I.

Horthy began attempting to chart an independent path from the Nazis as the German war effort flagged in 1944 and largely refused to deport the country's Jews — triggering a Nazi invasion and Döme Sztójay's installation as the country's puppet leader even while Horthy officially remained in power.

During Sztójay's six months as Hungary's prime minister, more than 440,000 Jews were deported from Hungary to concentration camps in one of the last major forced population transfers of the Holocaust. 

Sztójay, who had been Hungary's ambassador to Nazi Germany for the decade leading up to World War II, was captured by American troops after the war and executed in Hungary in 1946.

Not all heads of state are created equal. Whereas some rulers, such as the president of the US, can claim to be the leader of the free world, others, such as the pope, can claim to be infallible.

What does unite world leaders, whether they are the largely ceremonial king of Norway or the long deceased but Eternal President of North Korea, is that each leader has a number of amazing powers and perks at their disposal.

We have compiled the most interesting powers of nine world leaders below.

SEE ALSO: 32 incredible powers of Queen Elizabeth II you didn't know she had

Join the conversation about this story »

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

Thailand is pursuing closer ties - and possible arms deals - with Russia, with relations between Thailand and its traditional partner, the United States, cooling in the wake of a May 2014 coup.

Two Thai deputy prime ministers will travel to Russia, just weeks after a visit to Bangkok by the powerful head of Russia's security council, Nikolai Patrushev.

On the table, officials from both countries say, are wide-ranging talks on trade and security cooperation, as Russia seeks to develop its position as an Asian power.

Most attention has been focused on Thailand's warming ties with China, including talks on a massive rail project and the possible purchase of $1 billion worth of Chinese-made submarines.

But Russia appears keen to compete for Thailand's attention.

In the last 18 months, Thai junta leader General Prayuth Chan-ocha has met three times with Russian Prime Minister Dimitry Medvedev, who visited Thailand in April 2015, the Russian ambassador to Thailand, Kirill Barsky, told Reuters. Prayuth will travel to Russia in May for a meeting between Russia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

"The US won't sell"

The big prize of talks - and of most strategic concern to the United States - is in defense.

Thailand served as a staging ground for American forces during the Vietnam War, and the Pentagon values its strategic access to the Southeast Asian nation’s airfields and ports. But for a second straight year, the United States scaled back regional military exercises, known as "Cobra Gold", which Thailand hosted earlier this month.

Thai media have reported that Thailand is seeking to buy dozens of Russian T-90 tanks to replace part of its aging -made fleet.

In an interview, Thai Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Prawit Wongsuwan told Reuters no decision had been made on the tanks. But restrictions on the sale of arms to the military-ruled country means Thailand needs to shop elsewhere for the roughly 50 tanks it needs, he said.

"The won't sell weaponry to us, and as of late we've been on a tight budget and can't afford them," Prawit said. A 2011 deal to buy 49 tanks from Ukraine fell through after only 10 were delivered, he noted.

Thailand is on course to sign an agreement with Russia covering counter-terrorism and is looking to buy Russian hardware, such as helicopters, for disaster response, he said.

"It's not that we've decided to be on good terms with China and Russia and not with the We're equally good to all of them." 

"This is our destiny"

Russia has made it clear that its approach to Thailand is part of a broader push for Asian influence. But this will not necessarily be at the expense of China or the United States, Barsky, ambassador Barsky said.

"Russia does not need to prove to anybody that Russia is an Asian power, an Asia-Pacific power, a Euro-Pacific power. This is our destiny as a country which stretches from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific coast," he said.

Next week's visit will include talks on 25 separate draft agreements, including on trade, culture, technology and security, he said.

Prawit will meet Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin and Trade Minister Denis Manturov for talks on military and technical cooperation, Barksy said.

"If Thailand selects Russian tanks, more than welcome, more than welcome."

Matthew Sussex, a Russia expert at Australian National University, said any deal on tanks "would certainly make Washington sit up and take notice".

Russia already refuels its nuclear-capable bombers in Vietnam and is probing Southeast Asia for a possible strategic "toehold", he said.

Even if they remain all talk, warming Thai-Russia relations would still worry the United States, Sussex said.

"The fact that the Thai government is starting to say 'well, you know, what about the Russians?' sends pretty worrying signs to D.C."

SEE ALSO: 22 brutal dictators you've never heard of

Join the conversation about this story »

The main Syrian opposition group said Saturday it would be ready "in principle" to implement a provisional truce, slamming Russia and the Syrian government after a deadline set for a temporary cessation of hostilities passed.

The Saudi-backed group, known as the High Negotiations Committee, said any potential truce would require the Syrian government to first lift blockades from rebel-held communities and release thousands of detainees.

The statement followed a meeting among opposition groups held in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, on Saturday to discuss the situation after the passing of a deadline set by world powers, including Russia and the US

A Feb. 12 meeting in Munich of 18 nations supporting opposing sides in Syria's five-year civil war agreed to bring about a cessation of hostilities within a week to allow for peace talks to resume in Geneva. But the truce never took hold amid intense fighting, including a massive Russian-backed government offensive near the Turkish border.

U.N. envoy Staffan de Mistura told the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet on Friday that he cannot "realistically" get the parties in the Syrian conflict back to the table by Feb. 25 as he had hoped.

The HNC said any truce must include all parties to the conflict, notably Russia and Iran, key supporters of President Bashar Assad's government. Russia has said that it would continue to strike at "terrorists" in Syria even during a cease-fire.

"The deadline set in Munich for a cessation of hostilities has passed without response from Russia or the regime, who show disdain for the international community and disregard for the lives of Syrians," said HNC spokesman Salem Al Meslet in a statement.

He said Assad and Russia have spent "yet another week annihilating defenseless Syrians" and called on the international community to implement a new approach that holds the two to account.

Saudi Arabia's foreign minister meanwhile said he favors equipping Syrian rebels with surface-to-air missiles.

"We believe that introducing surface-to-air missiles in Syria is going to change the balance of power on the ground," Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir was quoted as telling the German weekly Der Spiegel in an interview published Saturday.

He said the moderate opposition could "neutralize" helicopters and aircraft that have been bombing them, adding that the move would have to be studied carefully, "because you don't want such weapons to fall into the wrong hands."

The US has long opposed equipping rebels with such weapons, fearing they would fall into the hands of extremist groups. Al-Jubeir said it's a decision that the international coalition will have to make. "This is not Saudi Arabia's decision."

Meanwhile, the spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin said the Kremlin is disappointed by the rejection of a proposed United Nations resolution aimed at stopping cross-border shelling and foreign ground intervention in the Syrian conflict.

The draft resolution was put forth by Russia on Friday at an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council and was immediately turned down by France.

It did not name Turkey but it was clearly aimed at the Turkish government, which has threatened ground action and is shelling US-backed Kurdish militia positions in Syria.

On Saturday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said "Russia views such trans-border strikes by Turkish artillery and artillery strikes at Syrian territory as unacceptable," according to the state news agency Tass.

"We can only express our regret that this draft resolution was not supported," he said.

Syria's government described the Turkish artillery shelling inside Syria as an "outrageous violation" of international law.

Turkey has been shelling Kurdish militia positions in Syria in recent days, saying it is exercising its right to self-defense and responding to fire from Syrian soil. It has also threatened to send in ground forces.

The main Kurdish group in Syria, the People's Protection Units, or YPG, has denied firing at Turkey from Syria. The group has been on the offensive near the Turkish border, seizing territory from Turkey-backed Syrian rebels as well as the extremist Islamic State group.

Turkey views the YPG as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, which has waged a decades-long insurgency against Ankara.

The YPG dominates a military alliance made up of Kurdish, Arab and Christian fighters known as the Syria Democratic Forces, which on Friday captured the town of Shaddadeh in northeastern Syria after three days of battles with IS militants. The town was one of the biggest strongholds of the extremist group in Syria.

The capture of Shaddadeh was reported by the SDF as well as by Syrian activist groups opposed to President Bashar Assad on Friday.

A militant website affiliated with IS disputed the reports, saying the militants were still in control of the town. A statement published by the Aamaq news agency said fighting was still raging around the town with Kurdish units trying to advance under US air cover.

SEE ALSO: Turkey just received a huge 'political gift' — but its opponents are warning it could lead to a ‘big war'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: IAN BREMMER: Ukraine's government will fall apart 'by the end of this year'

Belgrade (AFP) - A US air strike believed to have killed an Islamic State group operative behind the mass murder of tourists on a Tunisian beach also killed two kidnapped Serbian embassy employees, Belgrade said on Saturday.

The attack on Friday targeted a jihadist training camp near the Libyan coastal city of Sabratha, killing dozens of people.

But Belgrade said the victims of the strike also included two employees from its embassy in Libya, who were taken hostage on November 8 in Sabratha from a convoy of cars heading to the Tunisian border.

US officials said the raid likely killed Noureddine Chouchane, also known as "Sabir," who along with other jihadists had been planning attacks against American and other Western interests.

Chouchane is suspected of being behind both the beach attack in July 2015 near the Tunisian city of Sousse that killed 38 tourists, including 30 Britons and an attack on the National Bardo Museum in Tunis that killed 21 tourists and a policeman in March 2015.

Both attacks were claimed by the Islamic State group.

"It has just been officially confirmed that two Serbian citizens who were foreign ministry employees, Sladjana Stankovic and Jovica Stepic, were killed," Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic told reporters. 

"They were killed by explosions, obviously we are talking about American bombs," he said, expressing "deepest condolences" to the families.

"This is the first big hostage crisis that our state has been faced with. Our people would have been released had they not been killed," insisted Vucic.

A Pentagon spokeswoman said they were still assessing the results of the strike and would "make further statements if and when appropriate".

"We are aware of the reports, but, at this time, have no indications that confirm this reporting," she said, referring to Belgrade's announcement.

Vucic said the bodies of Stankovic, the embassy's communications chief, and her driver Stepic were expected to be repatriated on Monday.

Sabratha, which lies 70 kilometres (42 miles) west of Tripoli, is considered a stronghold of extremism in lawless Libya, where militants are trained in jihadist camps before launching deadly attacks in other countries.

The country spiralled into chaos after longtime dictator Moamer Kadhafi was ousted and killed in October 2011, with two governments vying for power and armed groups battling to control vast energy resources.

Belgrade maintains an embassy in Tripoli, and Serbian citizens -- mostly doctors, other medical staff and construction workers -- have been working in Libya for decades due to close bilateral relations during Kadhafi's regime.

ISIS training in Libya

The Pentagon estimates that around 5,000 IS fighters are in Libya, and Friday's strike was the second US air raid in the past three months targeting the fast-expanding group in the North African country.

A statement from the Tripoli-based general prosecutor said that one of those wounded in the US strike had confirmed that he and the others killed in the raid were IS members.

The wounded man said they "came to Libya to train and then carry out terrorist attacks in Tunis", the prosecutor's statement said.

The Sabratha Municipal Council confirmed the deaths of the Serbian hostages and called on Tunisian and Libyan authorities to "take responsibility and help in fighting these terrorist organisations".

Vucic said Washington was probably unaware that the Serbian hostages were held at the bombed location, "but it will remain unknown".

He said relations with the United States were "historically not easy", referring to the 11-week bombing campaign by NATO against Serbia in 1999 during the Kosovo war.

"I am not ready... to strain and worsen relations with the United States because we need them as a friend and partner, not as an enemy," he added.

SEE ALSO: That proposed halt in fighting in Syria is now looking like a complete failure

Join the conversation about this story »

Long-time Ugandan leader Yoweri Museveni was on Saturday declared the winner of the country's disputed presidential election, but his main rival rejected the results as fraudulent and called for an independent audit of the count.

Museveni got more than 60 percent of the votes, and his nearest rival Kizza Besigye got 35 percent, according to final results announced by the election commission.

Besigye was under house arrest as Museveni was declared the winner, with heavily armed police standing guard near his residence on the outskirts of the capital, Kampala. In a video obtained by The Associated Press, Besigye said he rejects the results.

"We knew right from the beginning the electoral commission that was organizing and managing these elections was a partisan, incompetent and discredited body as from the previous elections," Besigye said. "We knew that the military and security organizations were going to be engaged in a partisan and unfair way like they did in the past."

Besigye urged the international community to reject the official tally.

The capital was calm following the announcement of results amid a heavy security presence.

Museveni's ruling party, the National Resistance Movement, urged "all candidates to respect the will of the people and the authority of the electoral commission and accept the result. We ask all Ugandans to remain calm and peaceful and not to engage in any public disruptions."

The voting on Thursday was marred by lengthy delays in the delivery of polling materials, some incidents of violence as well as a government shutdown of social media sites like Twitter and Facebook, which remained inaccessible Saturday.

The election was marked by an "intimidating atmosphere, which was mainly created by state actors," said the European Union observer mission. Uganda's election commission lacks independence and transparency and does not have the trust of all the parties, EU mission leader Eduard Kukan told reporters Saturday. Opposition supporters were harassed by law enforcement officials in more than 20 districts, according to the EU's preliminary report.

Uganda's elections "fell short of meeting key democratic benchmarks," former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, the head of the Commonwealth observer mission, said, talking about his group's interim assessment.

"The Ugandan people deserved better," said U.S. State Department deputy spokesman Mark Toner.

"We encourage those who wish to contest the election results to do so peacefully and in accordance with Uganda's laws and judicial process, and urge the Ugandan government to respect the rights and freedoms of its people and refrain from interference in those processes," Toner said.

Police on Friday surrounded the headquarters of the FDC opposition party as Besigye met with members and a helicopter fired tear gas at a crowd outside. Police then moved in and took away Besigye, a 59-year-old doctor. He was later taken to his house which was guarded by police who prevented access to journalists.

After Besigye's arrest on Friday, his supporters took to the streets. Riot police lobbed tear gas and stun grenades at them and fired warning shots from automatic rifles, then chased them through narrow alleys, arresting some.

Besigye's party is alleging massive vote rigging and accuses the government of deliberately stalling voting in opposition strongholds in Kampala and the neighboring Wakiso district.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry spoke by phone with Museveni "to underscore that Uganda's progress depends on adherence to democratic principles in the ongoing election process," the State Department said. Kerry urged Museveni to rein in the security forces.

The 71-year-old Museveni took power by force in 1986 and pulled Uganda out of years of chaos after a guerrilla war. He is a key U.S. ally on security matters, especially in Somalia. Critics fear he may want to rule for life and they accuse him of using security forces to intimidate the opposition.

Besigye was Museveni's personal physician during the bush war and served as deputy interior minister in his first Cabinet. He broke with the president in 1999, saying Museveni was no longer a democrat.

Join the conversation about this story »

Seoul (AFP) - North Korean state media on Sunday confirmed the country has a new military chief following earlier reports in Seoul that the former holder of the post had been executed.

Ri Myong-Su, former People's Security Minister, was referred to as "chief of the Korean People's Army General Staff" when the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) reported on an army exercise guided by leader Kim Jong-Un.

Ri Myong-Su was again mentioned in a separate KCNA report on Kim's inspection of an air force exercise.

His predecessor Ri Yong-Gil was reportedly executed early this month in what would be the latest in a series of purges and executions of top officials.

Ri Yong-Gil was accused of forming a political faction and corruption, South Korea's Yonhap news agency said, citing a source familiar with North Korean affairs.

In May last year, South Korea's spy agency said Kim had his defence chief Hyon Yong-Chol executed -- reportedly with an anti-aircraft gun.

Hyon's fate was never confirmed by Pyongyang but he has never been seen or heard of since. Some analysts have suggested he was purged and imprisoned.

Reports -- some confirmed, some not -- of purges, executions and disappearances have been common since Kim took power following the death of his father Kim Jong-Il in December 2011. 

A large number of senior officials, especially military cadres, were removed or demoted as the young leader sought to solidify his control over the powerful military. 

In the most high-profile case, Kim had his influential uncle Jang Song-Thaek executed in December 2013 for charges including treason and corruption.

Professor Yang Moo-Jin of the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul said the new military chief was one of Kim's top three aides and was known to be well-versed in missile technology.

North Korea conducted its fourth nuclear test last month and launched a long-range rocket this month, sparking international outrage.

Join the conversation about this story »

It’s well known that cats will always land on their feet when dropped. According to this clip, those cat-like reflexes are completely lost in a weightless environment.

Along with cats, the Airmen fly pigeons in a weightless state, and some of them wound up flying upside down.

The 1947 video was part of the US Air Force’s aerospace-medical-research lab’s bioastronautics research in Dayton, Ohio.

Watch the full 13-minute video here, which includes pretty nifty slow-motion ejection-seat footage (not using cats).

SEE ALSO: The 25 most ruthless leaders of all time

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's Why Cats Love Boxes So Much

The United States' aircraft carriers have always been an almost untouchable deterrent, steel behemoths capable of projecting the full weight of the military wherever they deploy.

Yet while many militaries could never hope to match the carrier fleet in size and strength, countries such as China, Iran and Russia have spent recent years adjusting their forces and fielding equipment designed to counter one of the United States' greatest military strengths.

A report published Monday by the Center for a New American Security, a D.C.-based think tank that focuses on national security, claims that the Navy's carrier operations are at an inflection point. Faced with growing threats abroad, the United States can either "operate its carriers at ever-increasing ranges … or assume high levels of risk in both blood and treasure."

The report, titled "Red Alert: The Growing Threat to to Aircraft Carriers," centers around China's burgeoning military posture in the Pacific and on a term that is starting to appear with an ever-increasing urgency in defense circles: anti-access/area denial, or A2/AD. The term A2/AD centers around a concept that has long existed in warfare: denying the enemy an ability to move around the battlefield.

Currently A2/AD strategy is as similar as it was when moats were dug around castles, except today's moats are an integrated system of surface-to-air missiles, anti-ship cruise missiles, submarines, surface ships and aircraft all designed to push enemy forces as far away as possible from strategically important areas.

The report focuses on China's capabilities because of its "emphasis on long-range anti-ship missile procurement." This, coupled with its growing tech base, qualifies China as the "pacing threat" to the military. China, however, is not the sole architect of an A2/AD strategy designed to deter operations.

In the Baltics, Russia's naval base in Kaliningrad is known to house a sophisticated air defense network and anti-ship missiles. NATO commanders also have warned of Russian A2/AD buildup around Syria, as Russia has moved advanced surface-to-air missiles into its airbase there as well as a flotilla of ships with robust anti-air capabilities.

As other countries focus on creating sophisticated A2/AD bubbles by using new technology such as drones, advanced missiles and newer aircraft, the United States -- by operating as it always has -- is putting itself more at risk. According to the report, this is particularly relevant as carrier groups have reduced their long-range strike ability in lieu of being able to fly more air missions but at shorter ranges.

"Operating the carrier in the face of increasingly lethal and precise munitions will thus require the United States to expose a multi-billion dollar asset to high levels of risk in the event of a conflict," the report says. "An adversary with A2/AD capabilities would likely launch a saturation attack against the carrier from a variety of platforms and directions. Such an attack would be difficult — if not impossible — to defend against."

Last week, China's A2/AD strategy made international news after satellite imagery showed the deployment of HQ-9 surface-to-air missiles on Woody Island, a disputed atoll in the South China Sea. Though small, the island is claimed by both Taiwan and Vietnam. The CNAS report classifies the HQ-9 as a short-range A2/AD threat but indicates that the movement of such systems into disputed territory in the South China Sea, if properly reinforced, is a potentially long-term problem for naval operations. 

Medium and long-range threats discussed in the report include land-based Chinese bombers and anti-ship ballistic missiles such as the DF-21D and DF-26. The two missiles "represent a significant threat to the carrier," with an estimated range of 810 and 1,620 nautical miles, respectively. According to the report, if the DF-26 is as operational and as accurate as the Chinese say it is, the missile would be able to hit the territory of Guam.

While the report discusses possible countermeasures for a sophisticated A2/AD network, including the Navy's future railgun project, the United States probably would employ a variety of systems and strategies, including hacking, to defeat the enemy threat.

However, long-term strategies suggested in the report include putting combat power into systems such as submarines and long-range carrier-based drones. Submarines could evade A2/AD by remaining undetected, while carrier based drones -- with their increased range -- would give carriers much-needed standoff from potential A2/AD threats.

The United States "must re-examine the relevance of the carrier and its air wing and explore innovative options for future operations and force structure," the report concludes. "If the United States is to maintain its military superiority well into the future, it cannot afford to do otherwise.

SEE ALSO: Russia wants to fly over the US with advanced digital cameras

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This is why US aircraft carriers are a force to be reckoned with

They say that legends aren’t born, but made. The reputation of the Royal Navy’s Commando Helicopter Force (CHF) Sea King HC4 fleet has been forged in the heat of battle, under fire in every theatre of operation undertaken since the dark-olive chariots first entered service with their fearless, elite operators some 37 years ago.

SEE ALSO: Watch US Marines drift in a 67 ton M1A1 Abrams tank

Now standing at just seven ‘cabs’ on the 848 Naval Air Squadron flightline from a heyday of 40-plus, even those final seven machines will have more tales to tell than most assets the world over.

Indeed, just one airframe – the 1981-build ZA298 – has been shot down three times in three different battle grounds.

But time waits for no man.

The reign of the scarred Sea King HC4s will end on Mar. 31 (as will the service of 848 NAS), with the passing of duty to the AgustaWestland Merlin fleet transferred from Royal Air Force ranks.

These machines will have undergone a modification programme to suit the Royal Marine Commando troop deployment role, and also represent an inevitable leap in capability despite an expected total fleet of 25 modified airframes by 2020.

The writing was first on the wall for the Sea King HC4 replacement 2010 ahead of the five-year transition plan, with the 2010 Strategic Defence Review decree that all RAF Merlin HC3s would be transferred to the Royal Navy’s Commando Helicopter Force.

On Sept. 30, 2014, the Merlins were formally handed over and the first RN Merlin unit (846 NAS) stood up concurrently with its move from RAF Benson to RNAS Yeovilton on 26th March 2015.

A Merlin Life Sustainment Programme (MLSP) is underway, transforming the original Mk3/3As to HC4/4A standard, which will ‘navalise’ the helicopters and enable an amphibious role. This includes folding main rotor blades and tail boom, avionics upgrades (digital glass cockpit to the same standard as the RN Merlin Mk2 and Wildcats).

When Germany began its assault on Holland on May 10, 1940, the international community was not just worried about the lives of the Dutch people but also about the massive stocks of industrial diamonds in Amsterdam.

Industrial diamonds were used for many manufacturing purposes and the country that controlled the diamonds could create more weapons, vehicles, and sophisticated technology like radar.

That’s why two diamond traders in England, Jan Smit and Walter Keyser, offered their services to the British government.

Jan’s father ran a large trading interest in Amsterdam and was friends with many more traders. Smit was certain that if he were allowed passage into and out of Amsterdam, he could get many diamonds out before the Nazis could seize them.

Approval for the mission went all the way to the new prime minister Winston Churchill himself. Churchill ordered a military officer to escort the two men and granted them the use of an old World War I destroyer, the HMS Walpole, to get them into the city.

The Walpole had to thread a mile gap between German and British minefields at night under blackout conditions to get across the English Channel.

During the transit, the Walpole almost struck another British ship sneaking through the darkness. Those on the Walpole would learn years later that the other ship was evacuating members of the Dutch Royal family.

Keyser and Smit arrived in the harbor just before daybreak and spent the day working with Smit’s father to convince traders to release the diamonds to the Keyser and Smit. From their landing at the docks to their trips around the city, the men were driven by a Jewish woman, Anna, who protected them from possible German spies.

Throughout the men’s day in Amsterdam, Dutch police and soldiers were attempting to root out pockets of German paratroopers wreaking havoc in the city. Across the country, German forces were quickly taking over and quashing resistance. Gunfire interrupted a few of their meetings.

Many of the diamond traders were Jewish and could have bribed their way out of the country with their stocks and possibly escaped the Holocaust. Instead, they took the chance to get them away from German hands. Most of the traders even refused receipts out of fear that the Germans would learn how many diamonds they had prevented the Third Reich from getting their hands on.

While the men gave many of their diamonds to the English agents, the attack had come during a bank weekend and many were in safes that couldn’t be opened for another day or more.

Luckily another British agent, Lt. Col. Montagu R. Chidson, made his way to the massive vault at the Amsterdam Mart and spent hours breaking into it, even as German paratroopers forced their way into the building. He escaped with the diamonds as the soldiers forced their way down the stairs.

At the end of the day, Chidson escaped on his own while Anna rushed Smit, Keyser, and their military escort back to the docks just in time to rendezvous with the HMS Walpole. Smit carried a thick canvas bag filled with the diamonds and forced a tug driver at gunpoint to take them to the British destroyer.

Chidson’s diamonds made their way to Queen Wilhelmina while the diamonds recovered by Smit and Keyser were held in London for the duration of the war.

(h/t David E. Walker for his 1955 book, “Adventure In Diamonds” where he recounts much of the first-hand testimony of the men who took part in the operations to recover diamonds ahead of the Nazi advance).

SEE ALSO: Rare insight into the Royal Navy’s Commando Helicopter ForceRare insight into the Royal Navy’s Commando Helicopter Force

Join the conversation about this story »

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

LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. estimates of the number of Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria have been reduced while cuts in their pay are evidence they are on the defensive, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition fighting the group said on Monday.

But the task of defeating Islamic State is complicated by Russian air strikes in Syria which are 90 percent targeted at opposition fighters and not at the jihadist group, U.S. Army Colonel Steve Warren said.

Warren said increases in forced conscription, the recruitment of child soldiers and the use of elite fighters in common units were all evidence that Islamic State was seeing a slowing in the influx of foreign fighters.

"We believe that Daesh is now beginning to lose. We see them in a defensive crouch," Warren told reporters in London, using an Arabic acronym for Islamic State.

U.S. intelligence estimates of the number of Islamic State fighters, which for the first 17 months of coalition operations ranged from 19,000 to 31,000, had been revised to 20,000 to 25,000 - a level he said the group would struggle to maintain.

"They have been able to replenish their forces at roughly the same rate as we've been able to kill their forces. That's hard to sustain," he said.

Warren said that until recently the average local Islamic State fighter was paid about $400 a month, while foreign fighters, who tended to be "better" because they were more committed and fanatical, were on $600 to $800 a month.

However, recent announcements by the group and other evidence suggested that common fighters' pay had been cut by half, while it had also reduced pay for the foreign recruits, though perhaps not by such a large proportion, he said. 

Russians "reckless and irresponsible"

Warren said the group had lost 40 percent of the territory it once controlled in Iraq, and 10 percent in Syria, where the coalition's job was much harder, partly due to the Russian air strikes.

"The Russians have said they're here to fight terrorists, they're here to fight Daesh. We've seen very little evidence to support that. About 90 percent of Russian air strikes have been against the opposition, not against Daesh," he said.

"The Russians conduct their air strikes using imprecise methods. I find them reckless and irresponsible. They simply drop dumb bombs out of the back their aircraft," he said, adding that the coalition believed the Russians had used cluster bombs.

Asked about efforts to build up Syrian forces on the ground to fight Islamic State, Warren contrasted the fighting in the northwest corner of the country with the conflict further east, near the Islamic State stronghold of Raqqa.

In the northwest, he said the large number of groups operating made it harder for the coalition to generate a "meaningful ground force" there.

But in the strip of land from the town of Kobani to the Iraqi border, the coalition-backed Kurdish YPG group and allies were in control and beginning to drive south toward Raqqa city.

In Syria's northeastern province of Hasaka he highlighted the battle for al-Shadadi, a crossroads town east of Raqqa controlled by 400 to 600 Islamic State fighters, which the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said on Friday had been captured by forces including the YPG.

"When we're able to seize that it's yet another piece of the supply lines into Raqqa that becomes seized," he said.

(Editing by Dominic Evans)

SEE ALSO: Watch coalition airstrikes obliterate 2 ISIS financial-storage centers holding hundreds of millions of dollars

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: An AT&T spokesperson and former refugee is now helping Syrian refugees in Greece

Increasing Russian aggression coupled with China’s modernization of nuclear missiles and North Korea’s ambitions to develop and field advanced strategic weapons means nuclear arms are more relevant today than they were a decade ago.

While it is critical for Washington to outpace potential future threats by modernizing its nuclear deterrent, some policymakers are questioning the Air Force’s next-generation air-launched cruise missiles which are called Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) weapons that are crucial to sustaining the deterrent credibility of the manned bomber fleet.

America’s current air-launched cruise missiles consist of AGM-86Bs that have a range of 1,500 miles and are self-guided – they find their preselected target by comparing prerecorded contour maps with terrain “seen” by their sensors.

B-52s can carry as many as 20 AGM-86Bs, allowing a bomber force to saturate defenses by launching missiles in large numbers. Air-launched cruise missiles are hard to detect on radar because of their small size and low-altitude flight profile. The Air Force plans to replace these missiles with about 1,000 Long-Range Standoff weapons for $9 billion to ensure that the US nuclear deterrent remains effective.

In addition, the W80-4 warhead the new cruise missile will carry will undergo a life extension program estimated to cost $7 billion to $9.5 billion. The first Long-Range Standoff weapon will likely reach completion in 2026 and the upgraded warhead in 2025.

Some congressional leaders claim spending money on modernizing air-launched cruise missiles is redundant and destabilizing, asserting existing gravity bombs and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) could accomplish the same goal. Long-Range Standoff weapons are not redundant – they reassure allies and provide a unique and flexible dimension of US nuclear deterrence by allowing the ability to signal intent and control escalation when facing adversary air defenses.

The air-launched cruise missiles the US has today were fielded in 1982, intended to remain in service for 10 years. However, multiple life extension programs have kept the missiles in service for more than 30 years.

Critics have stated modernizing air-launched cruise missiles will destabilize security since they can be launched without warning and come in both nuclear and conventional variants. Nuclear cruise missiles are no more destabilizing than other weapons, and they have been around for a long time. During the Cold War, the Soviets and Americans developed second strike capabilities because they were aware of the uncertainty that dual use weapons produce.

Gravity bombs and ICBMs cannot be utilized in the same manner as nuclear cruise missiles. These missiles can access unsafe enemy territory for bombers by penetrating rival airspace and striking multiple targets without compromising a plane or its aircrew – losing a cruise missile to enemy air defenses is insignificant when compared to losing a bomber and its crew.

Unlike ICBMs, bombers can be deployed to allies’ territory to signal America’s commitment to their protection and can be recalled in flight.

Opponents have also pointed out that the development of 1,000 or so Long-Range Standoff weapons would double the current force size. However, only a fraction of the total number purchased will be deployed. One thousand Long-Range Standoff weapons are necessary to have enough spare missiles to test and also meet US Strategic Command’s operational requirements.  

New air-launched cruise missiles will be far more accurate than the ones we have today, and equipped with modern technology that was not available in 1982. The president will thus have more options in an extreme crisis if a limited nuclear war were to occur.

Those against funding Long-Range Standoff weapons have claimed that they violate the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review which states the US will not support new military missions or capabilities, but this is simply not true.  Long-Range Standoff weapons are an upgrade to the cruise missiles we have today to support the nuclear mission.  

Even Moscow is fielding its new KH-102 nuclear cruise missile, which allows Russian bombers to launch an attack and strike the US from outside its airspace, and it recently launched 26 Kalibr-NK cruise missiles from ships into Syria, more than 900 miles away. The nuclear mission that has been in existence for decades continues.

Finding funds to purchase Long-Range Standoff weapons will be challenging with the Budget Control Act in place and the cost of modernizing other components of the US strategic arsenal. Congress must modernize America’s archaic nuclear cruise missiles because they provide the president with more options, protect the bomber fleet and airmen, and ensure the US strategic deterrent remains safe, secure, and effective.

Given the reduced size of the nuclear arsenal and the types of delivery systems, the US and its allies are more susceptible to strategic surprise than at any point since the development of these dangerous weapons.

SEE ALSO: CHINA: South China Sea military buildup is no different than the US defending Hawaii

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Russia's military is more advanced than people thought

Following the earlier attacks on medical facilities in Syria run by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) the Russian Defence Ministry has published a statement explaining why it’s not responsible for the attacks. 

Much of the statement is a mess of barely coherent claims, and reads closer to a conspiracy theory than a statement from a serious organization. The Russian Defence Ministry attacks MSF, questioning whether or not the facilities actually had anything to do with MSF in the first place;

First of all, it is to be claimed that only Turkish authorities new about the fact that there had been hospitals of the “Doctors Without Borders” organization in Idlib and Azaz by the previous day. There is no information concerning these establishments anywhere including the website of the “Doctors Without Borders”.

In a Foreign Policy article dated February 16th, Syrian MSF Hospital Kept Location Secret to Avoid Being Bombed, the reason for this is quite clear. Those running the medical facility in Idlib were concerned that sharing the location would more likely make them a target, having seen many other medical facilities attacked in Syria.

The Russian Defence Ministry then moves onto slightly more bizarre accusations:

Moreover, messages concerning the allegedly destroyed hospitals and schools in Azaz dated February 10 can be simply found on the website.

In other words, this fabrication had been prepared but not realized the day before the meeting of the heads of foreign ministries of Russia and the USA in Munich, the results of which, as the Russian Defence Ministry assumes, are so opposed by Turkey.

This appears to refer to articles on the MSF website published on February 10th, Syria: Health system close to collapse in war-torn Azaz district and Syria: Escalation of Conflict in Azaz District Could Have Dire Consequences, which refer to the situation in the Azaz district:

Meanwhile, the fighting continues to put extreme pressure on the already devastated healthcare system. This includes several hospitals and smaller health facilities in Azaz and the rural areas around Aleppo city, having been hit by airstrikes in the last two weeks, including at least three MSF-supported hospitals.

“Azaz district has seen some of the heaviest tolls of this brutal war, and yet again we are seeing healthcare under siege,” said Muskilda Zancada, MSF head of mission, Syria. “We are extremely concerned about the situation in the south of the district, where medical staff, fearing for their lives, have been forced to flee and hospitals have either been completely closed, or can only offer limited emergency services.”

To claim, as the Russian Defence Ministry does, that these reports are fabrications some how accidentally published ahead of time, is frankly bizarre, something you’d expect to see on a badly written conspiracy blog rather than an official statement from any Defence Ministry. Next the Russian Defence Ministry claims:

In the message dated February 15 concerning the allegedly destroyed hospital in Idlib, there is no photo or video of this building: neither undamaged nor destroyed.

Two article on the MSF website were posted on February 15th about the attacks, At Least Seven Killed and Eight Missing in Attack on MSF-Supported Hospital in Northern Syria and MSF-Supported Hospital in Northern Syria Destroyed in Attack, both of which carry photographs of the building destroyed in Idlib:

Next, the Russian Defence Ministry raises where the stories are being reported from:

It is to be emphasized one more time: neither Syria, nor Idlib or Aleppo; it was the Turkish city of Gaziantep near the border with Syria.

By the way, that was the city where, by a strange coincidence, the largest training camps had been organized under the aegis of the Turkish secret services for militants arriving into the country from other countries including CIS who were then sent to Syria to fight within terrorist groupings.

If anybody in the Turkish Republic thinks that the Russian party does not guess that, they should not indulge in illusions.

Both messages concerning the allegedly destroyed hospitals and schools in Azaz dated February 10 and Idlib dated February 15 have the same origin – “Gaziantep. Turkey”.

This seems to refer to location the MSF articles are filed from, which seems to have confused the Russian Defence Ministry. As with many articles, the location of where the story is filed from is reported, in fact on one of the February 15th articles the location is Gaziantep/Paris. To imagine this is indicative of some sort of conspiracy is yet another bizarre statement by the Russian Defence Ministry. The Russian Defence Ministry finishes with:

The information concerning the place where these fabrications had been made has been published, apparently due to negligence of authors or editors of the website.

It’s unclear whether or not the Russian Defence Ministry actually believes this absolute nonsense, or have reached the point of being so desperate to deflect criticism that they make up any rubbish to defend themselves, even if it’s laughable conspiracy theories about MSF and Turkey plotting against them.

SEE ALSO: Russia wants to fly over the US with advanced digital cameras

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Russia's military is more advanced than people thought

It may have taken five years, but Canada may finally be getting some green artillery that won't poison people.

In the process, military scientists have found a more effective and cheaper type of ammunition that could reduce the environmental impact of war across the board.

A research project in the Canadian Armed Forces began looking for a new type of ammunition in 2011 in response to fear that its shooting ranges were posing a threat to local water sources.

Explosive rounds, especially from its Howitzer artillery, were being scattered around their training sites, and the military feared that the toxic chemicals inside the water-soluble rounds could seep into drinking water.

So scientists with the Canadian military began researching how to fix the problem. Their solution: make sure the rounds explode fully, and replace the decades-old explosive solution inside them with less-toxic material.

The project was called RIGHTTRAC — an acronym for Revolutionary Insensitive, Green and Healthier Training Technology with Reduced Adverse Contamination — and it was undertaken by Defence Research & Development Canada (DRDC).

It served essentially as a proof of concept, and the results are expected to be replicated on other types of ammunition.

The final report is dated May 2015, but the results were only just published by the DRDC.

"This project has proven that it is possible to develop [insensitive munitions] and green munitions that perform better than current munitions and that will help to ease the environmental pressures on [ranges and training areas]," the report concludes.

"The end result is that military personnel will be able to train and fight with ammunition having comparable or better properties than current munitions, with the added benefit of decreasing the environmental pressure and the health hazards on soldiers, sailors or airmen."

The report notes that the project was unique, in that it put environmental considerations at the forefront — without regard for cost — and ended up saving money in the long run, as well as developing a superior product.

The trouble with munitions, like artillery shells, is that they're designed to only explode in specific conditions. As such, there's all sorts of cases where the rounds only partially explode, or where they turn out to be duds and don't explode at all.

"Unexploded or deflagrated RDX does not degrade in soil and, because of its solubility in water, migrates easily to groundwater and off military property," the report says, referring to Research Department Formula X, a powerful and very common explosive developed during WWII. "This may trigger a serious environmental problem and becomes a public health concern if the groundwater is used for drinking."

One of the researchers on the project told La Presse newspaper that "we never know in which state of instability we'll find these non-exploded munitions."

The Canadian military, under this project, developed a formula for the shells that doesn't include RDX.

The 80-year-old chemical compound wasn't the only problem. Researchers also looked to improve the engineering of the rounds to avoid duds, and sought to replace toxic and carcinogenic compounds in the rounds with more earth-friendly chemicals. And, by and large, they succeeded.

This breakthrough may mean that the Department of National Defense won't have to pay to continually remediate these training sites to detoxify the soil.

The new ammunition was primarily designed just for training ranges in Canada, but the fact that the new rounds are both more effective, and cheaper, than regularly ammunition means that they could become the military standard for other militaries, both at home and in theatre.

In 2009, Patrick Brousseau, one of the researchers responsible for the project, noted that the Canadian Forces were working alongside the American, Swedish, British, Dutch, and Australian militaries on the project.

The international impact of toxic ammunition can be disastrous. A report on the effect of shelling in Syria says the ravaged country will also be facing "problematic soil and water contaminant" in the long-term, after the bombing ends.

Motherboard reported in 2015 that one Canadian Forces training base was re-building its firing range in order to prevent the littering of ammunition. More than a decade ago, the American military tried to green itself by reducing the amount of lead in its bullets — though that effort appeared, ultimately, to be counter-productive.

SEE ALSO: Russia's bizarre, barely coherent defense that it didn't bomb hospitals in Syria

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Russia's military is more advanced than people thought

Effective camouflage can be the difference between life and death in a combat situation. And for US Marine Brent Downing, camouflage is also an art. An expert in camouflage techniques, Downing runs a YouTube segment called the "Camouflage Effectiveness Series" in which he documents techniques from militaries around the world.

Downing's ability to hide in plain sight is amazing. We have compiled screenshots from some of his videos below. See if you can see him, because he sees you.

SEE ALSO: 13 extraordinary photographs of World War II snipers

SEE ALSO: See if you can find the camouflaged Marine hiding in these videos

US-led coalition airstrikes against the Islamic State (aka ISIS, ISIL, and Daesh) on February 15 destroyed a weapons storage facility near Abu Kamal, Syria.

The strike was just one of 30 carried out by the Combined Joint Task Force's Operation Inherent Resolve. 

Recently, the coalition's airstrikes have wrecked havoc on ISIS' ability to fund their operations and pay their workers, as multiple strikes earlier this month destroyed cash storage and tax collection facilities.

"The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the group's ability to project terror and conduct operations," the Combined Joint Task Force wrote about the video.

The footage below shows just one of more than 9,000 air strikes the coalition has carried out since beginning the operation in October of 2014.

SEE ALSO: The US military believes ISIS is 'in a defensive crouch'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: EX-PENTAGON CHIEF: These are the 2 main reasons ISIS was born

In September 2014, the internet lost its mind when President Barack Obama debarked Marine One with a cup of coffee in his hand and saluted a Marine standing near the helicopter.

Obama was on his way to speak to the UN about a range of issues from climate change to the war against ISIS militants in Syria, but the headlines focused on his "latte salute."

"If there was ever any doubt how this Commander in Chief really feels in his heart about our men and women in uniform, this should seal the deal. We have warriors engaged in harm’s way, and he does THIS? The latte salute. And he has the nerve to publish it on his Instagram account. Disgraceful," an ABC news report stated.

Here is a video from the White House Instagram that captured the moment:

But here’s the issue: There’s no regulation that stipulates presidents must salute the troops. In fact, for the first 192 years of our republic, it didn’t happen.

None of the first 38 commanders in chief did it. And some of those dudes had some serious military experience. Eisenhower? Grant? I mean, Teddy Roosevelt was a war hero. Surely he felt compelled to click his heels together and cut a perfect knife-handed salute when he passed a service member in uniform, right? Wrong.

It was literally something that Ronald Reagan made up one day.

In Rachel Maddow’s 2011 book “Drift,” a fascinating look at how modern presidents commit the military to war, Maddow describes how upon entering the White House in 1981, Reagan began saluting every uniformed service member he saw.

One of his military aides, a Marine officer named John Kline, who is now a Republican congressman from Minnesota, worried that Reagan’s new ritual was inappropriate.

He voiced his concerns directly with the president.

Maddow writes:

Soldiers were supposed to salute their president; the president was not supposed to salute the soldiers. No modern president, not even old General Eisenhower, had saluted military personnel. It might even be, well, sort of, improper. Reagan seemed disappointed at this news.

Kline suggested he talk to the commandant of the United States Marine Corps and get his advice, and the commandant’s advice ran something like this: You’re the god---- president. You can salute whoever you god---- well please. So Ronald Reagan continued saluting his soldiers, and he encouraged his own vice president and successor, George H.W. Bush, to do the same. And every president since has followed.

And that’s it. Now all the presidents do it because of the theater of the office. And because the media and pundits would take offense if they didn’t. Presidents salute the troops to avoid the very mess Obama just stepped in.

So now thousands of people got their jimmies rustled because the busiest and most important man in the world forgot to switch his pumpkin-spice latte from his right hand in following an imaginary protocol on his way to address the United Nations about a war he just entered. I can’t imagine what possibly could have been on his mind.

This isn’t the first time Obama has botched the salute. Last year, the president boarded Marine One without saluting the Marine by the door.

Realizing his mistake, he quickly debarked and shook the young corporal’s hand, telling him, I assume, how profoundly sorry he was for offending him.

For the past six years, the Obama administration has been plagued by accusations of being everything from treasonous to unpatriotic and distant from the military community.

It’s a largely partisan critique of a liberal president, and Obama’s critics have often bent history to pretend his predecessors behaved differently and that the president has failed to meet some sort of standard.

In the summer of 2001, George W. Bush saluted the Marine One crew chief with his Scottish Terrier Barney under his arm. It looked absolutely ridiculous.

No one, however, questioned Bush’s patriotism. No one said that his dog salute meant that he lacked respect for the Marines or hated the troops in his heart.

But recent presidential history hasn’t been kind (or fair) to the president.

When Maj. Gen. Harold Greene was killed in Afghanistan earlier this summer, critics blasted the president for not attending his funeral. Retired Air Force Col. Morris Davis said that Obama “bucked tradition” because Richard Nixon attended the funeral of Maj. Gen. John Dillard when he was killed in Vietnam in 1970 and George W. Bush attended Lt. Gen. Timothy Maude’s funeral when he was killed on Sept. 11, 2001. But for one problem — Nixon didn’t attend Dillard’s funeral, nor did Bush attend Maude’s. Davis later said that he was kidding and baiting Obama critics.

Similarly, a story that has plagued the Obama administration is that he failed to visit the D-Day memorial in Normandy on June 6 every year. The story said there were only four occasions in 69 years in which a president failed to visit the D-Day memorial on D-Day, and all four were in the Obama administration. In reality, however, no U.S. president visited the memorial at all until Reagan did it in 1984 (he was a real trend-setter). And it had been visited by an American president just six times in total, including a visit from Obama in 2009.

If someone deserves blame for this, it’s the operative behind the White House Instagram account who posted the video in the first place. Why post a video of a sloppy salute?

Isn’t that just begging for the criticism? It was sloppy, ignorant to the sensitivities of the criticisms this president faces, and absent of the high standard created by social media in the 21st century.

But it wasn’t disrespectful.

This post was originally published in September 2014. Brian Adam Jones is the editor-in-chief of Task & Purpose. He is a veteran of the United States Marine Corps and of the conflict in Afghanistan.

SEE ALSO: 44 iconic images of Barack Obama's tenure as president

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: An inside look at Marine One — Obama’s favorite presidential perk

As international conflicts continue unabated, international transfers of arms continue to rise.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the sale of arms and munitions increased by 14% between the time periods of 2011-2015 and 2006-2010. This increase in military acquisitions was largely driven by just five countries. 

SIPRI notes that the countries that bought the most weapons in 2011-2015 were responsible for 34% of all arms imports between 2011-2015. 

India was far and away the largest arms importer. During the 2011-2015 timeframe, it was responsible for 14% of all total international arms imports globally. India's imports, according to SIPRI, increased 90% as compared against the 2006-2010 timeframe.

By these measurements, New Delhi imports close to three times more than its closest regional rivals, Pakistan and China. India's reliance on imports is largely due to the country's slow start at creating a domestic arms industry. 

Saudi Arabia is the second largest importer, with the country being responsible for 7% of all global imports. This import rate spiked 275% compared to the 2006-2010 timeframe, with the country pledged to continue receiving high numbers of imports from the West over the following five years. 

China, the United Arab Emirates, and Australia round out the top five importers. The countries were responsible for 4.7%, 4.6%, and 3.6% of global weapons imports respectively. Whereas Australia's numbers largely held steady from previous years, both the UAE and China saw fairly large differences. 

China's imports fell by 25% compared to the 2006-2010 timeframe, largely due to the country's burgeoning technical ability which has translated to a growing domestic weapons market. 

The UAE, on the other hand, increased imports by 37%. 

The largest arms import increase came from Vietnam, however. The country went from being the 43rd largest importer in 2006-2010 to becoming the eighth largest importer, with a 699% increase in arms imports.

Vietnam's imports overwhelmingly came from Russia. The country is currently trying to upgrade its naval and aerial capabilities as it continues to butt heads against China over territorial disputes in the South China Sea. 

SEE ALSO: See if you can spot the armed camouflaged Marine watching you

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The US Navy's last line of defense is this ultimate gun

A recently published video purports to show a tank crew using the massive turret to capture footage and selfies. While the video could not be independently identified, it shows creative use of a tank cannon. 

In the slides below see the highlights of the video.

SEE ALSO: A guide to Russia's T-14 Armata tank

The first shots of the video show the rag-tag, Cold-War era T-64BV tank rolling around Eastern Ukraine almost completely covered in explosive reactive armor plating, but also missing the cover of its left tread.

RAW Embed

Next we see the we're given a shell's eye view of the older tank's rather mechanical and involved loading process.

RAW Embed

Inside the tank we see the loader arm the cannon and then the firing is viewed from the outside.

RAW Embed