Sensitive data is understood to have been targeted in a seres of hacks against US banks, though the FBI has not confirmed that the perpetrators were Russian. Photograph: Eduardo Munoz/Reuters
The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is investigating reports that JPMorgan and at least four other US banks have been targeted by hackers in an attempt to obtain sensitive customer data.
The cyberattacks have been linked to Russian hackers, Bloomberg reported, who quoted sources claiming that hackers have been able to extract “gigabytes of sensitive data”.
The attacks may be connected to recent hacking attempts against European banks, it is understood. Investigators are said to be exploring links to both the Russian government and to Russian criminal networks, although Eastern European criminals are also a potential source.
Cybersecurity experts and US government officials have not yet confirmed this, nor have they been able to confirm these attacks are linked to the recent US imposed sanctions on Russia.
In a statement, the FBI is said to be currently working with the Secret Service to determine the source of the attack.
“We are working with the United States secret service to determine the scope of recently reported cyber attacks against several American financial institutions,” said FBI supervisory special agent Joshua Campbell.
JPMorgan Chase declined to comment about the attacks. “Companies of our size unfortunately experience cyberattacks nearly every day. We have multiple, layers of defense to counteract any threats and constantly monitor fraud levels,” said a statement.
Cybersecurity experts say that these sorts of crimes are usually linked to obtaining intellectual property, rather than causing damage to financial institutions.
“There’s always been an assumption because of the global nature of financial systems, that attacking a financial system will cause mutual disruption and financial loss,” said Rory Innes, head of cybersecurity at Salamanca Group.
“Russia, for example, has money in the US financial system as do all big nations, and it will affect every nation involved. If it is state sponsored espionage, which is what the FBI have proposed, it’s likely that it is about intellectual property theft to increase home competitive advantage or to make a political statement in retaliation for Western sanctions.”
Costin G Raiu, senior security researcher at Kaspersky Lab, said that cybercriminals are constantly developing more sophisticated ways to target instiutions st scale.
“JP Morgan is a gold mine for this sort of information. Previously cyber criminals have been going after individual people’s money, so in a sense we’re seeing an evolution of cyber attacks.
“Instead of going after a few dollars these cyber criminals are using their resources to go straight to the banks.”
Russian cybercriminals stole the credit card details of up to 110 million shoppers from the the US department store chain Target in December 2013, and in the same month hacking in to a BBC file transfer server and trying to sell access to other hackers.
In August 2014, Wisconsin-based Hold Security claimed that Russian cyber gang CyberVor stole data from more than 420,000 websites to amass 4.5bn records, including 500,000 email addresses and 1.2bn username and password combinations.
Hold Security also uncovered the Adobe Systems attack in October 2013 in which 2.9 million customer IDs and passwords were stolen, including customer names and encrypted debit or credit card numbers along with their expiration dates.
A Russian parliamentarian and human rights observers are demanding Russia finally admit its own soldiers are fighting in Ukraine. The soldiers are risking their lives, they say, in an undeclared war.
The official Russian version of events is as follows: In eastern Ukraine, the Ukrainian army is battling Ukrainian army rebels, the so called "people's militia." A civil war is taking place between the nation's own people.
Russian human rights observers, however, assume that Russian soldiers have long been involved in the war in eastern Ukraine. They are convinced that not only volunteers or mercenaries are fighting there, but regular Russian army soldiers. Many of them are in a tragic situation, risking their lives in a war that, according to their own country's account, isn't being led by Russia at all.
Up to 12,000 Russian soldiers in Ukraine?
Lev Schlosperg is a Russian parliamentarian
Lev Schlosberg, representative of the deputy assembly for the Pskow district in northwest Russia, was the first to speak openly about secret burials of soldiers from the Pskower parachute division.
"The community must know what's really happening. To my great regret, the civil authorities as well as the defense ministry are not telling the truth," Schlosberg told DW. "There is enough evidence that regular Russian troops - disguised as units of the self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk - are taking part in the fighting in Ukraine."
Valentina Melnikova of the Union of the Committee of Soldiers' Mothers of Russia, an organization which works to exposes human rights violations committed by the Russian military, spoke of an exceptionally high numbers of troops.
"By my estimate, between 10,000 and 12,000 soldiers are taking part in the fighting in Ukraine," Melnikovasaid. "That is my estimate - only the defense minister knows the exact number. There are parachutists and infantry. We're not taking about mercenaries or volunteers, but regular soldiers."
No authorization
The legal status of the Russian troops in Ukraine is also unexplained.
"There are units that were trained on Russian Federation territory. They are crossing illegally over the Ukrainian border and are taking part in combat actions," Lew said. "It is known that the council of the Russian Federation authorized the implementation of Russian force outside its own territory at the personal request of Putin himself. Without this authorization, neither the commander nor the defense minister has the right to send soldiers into conflict in other countries. What is happening here is criminal activity."
Schlosberg finds it terrible that the families of parachutists who have landed in Ukraine were not informed of their use in this war. They are told the soldiers are taking part it regular troop exercises. The Pskow parachute division is supposedly ready to be utilized in many battles, in Afghanistan und Chechnya, but never as an illegal armed group, the representative said.
"The officers with whom I've spoken are outraged. They believe that the Russian leadership has betrayed the soldiers. It's a shame to send regular armed troops disguised as partisans to a foreign country, and then to deny those losses and bury the dead secretly."
Melnikova wants to make Russians aware that their troops are engaged in an illegal war
The mysterious burial of soldiers in the Pskow cemetery a few days ago alarmed human rights observers and members of the military. Shortly after the funeral, even the names of the victims and the wreaths from their army comrades were removed. While two cases of secret burial are known about, the figure is assumed to be higher.
Melnikovaworries about the legal rights of Russian soldiers who've been taken prisoner in Ukraine. They are supposedly neither partisans nor saboteurs, neither mercenaries nor terrorists.
"Why should they not be treated as prisoners of war? They fight in uniform with their weapons and equipment under their regular commander. The Geneva conventions clearly lay out who qualifies as a combatant and who does not. Our soldiers have all the characteristics of combatants," Melnikovasaid.
Putin draws criticism
What does Melnikova say about Putin's claims there are no Russian troops in Ukraine? Or that, even if there were troops there, that they had become lost?
Western politicians and journalists would have to be pretty naive to believe such nonsense, the activist says.
"Putin has been the supreme commander of the Russian armed forces since 2000. If he really believed his parachutists were so clumsy, he'd need to send the entire army home."
Ukraine army forces continue battling to regain territory held be pro-Russian rebels
All Russian soldiers sent to Ukraine, Melnikova advises, should refuse orders and write complaints to their army command and to state prosecutors. It is illegal to invade a foreign country without an official order. The soldiers would be taking part in a war crime.
Melnikova hopes that a discussion will begin in Russia now. A shift in Russian attitudes could occur if the mothers of soldiers protest to bring their sons home, she says.
Updated: June 23, 2014
At the dawn of the nuclear age, the United States hoped to maintain a monopoly on its new weapon, but the secrets for making nuclear weapons soon spread. Four years after the United States dropped atomic bombs on Japan in August 1945, the Soviet Union detonated its first nuclear device. The United Kingdom (1952), France (1960), and China (1964) followed. Seeking to prevent the nuclear weapon ranks from expanding further, the United States and other like-minded states negotiated the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968. In the decades since, several states have abandoned nuclear weapons programs, but others have defied the NPT. India, Israel, and Pakistan have never signed the treaty and possess nuclear arsenals. Iraq initiated a secret nuclear program under Saddam Hussein before the 1991 Persian Gulf War. North Korea announced its withdrawal from the NPT in January 2003 and has tested nuclear devices since that time. Iran and Libya have pursued secret nuclear activities in violation of the treaty’s terms, and Syria is suspected of doing the same. Still, nuclear nonproliferation successes outnumber failures and dire forecasts decades ago that the world would be home to dozens of states armed with nuclear weapons have not come to pass.
Nuclear-Weapon States:
The nuclear-weapon states (NWS) are the five states—China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States—officially recognized as possessing nuclear weapons by the NPT. Although the treaty legitimizes these states’ nuclear arsenals, it also establishes that they are not supposed to build and maintain such weapons in perpetuity. Article VI of the treaty holds that each state-party is to “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.” In 2000, the five NWS committed themselves to an “unequivocal undertaking…to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.” But for now, the five continue to retain the bulk of their nuclear forces. Because of the secretive nature with which most governments treat information about their nuclear arsenals, most of the figures below are best estimates of each nuclear-weapon state’s nuclear holdings, including both strategic warheads and lower-yield devices referred to as tactical weapons. Russia and the United States also retain thousands of retired warheads planned for dismantlement, not included here.
China: About 250 total warheads.
France: Fewer than300 operational warheads.
Russia: Approximately 1,512 strategic warheads deployed on 498 ICBMs, SLBMs, and strategic bombers [1]. The Federation of American Scientists estimates Russia has another 1,000 nondeployed strategic warheads and approximately 2,000 tactical nuclear warheads. Additional thousands are awaiting dismantlement. United Kingdom: Fewer than 160 deployed strategic warheads, total stockpile of up to 225.
United States: 4,804 nuclear warheads as of September 2013 [2], including tactical, strategic, and nondeployed weapons. According to the latest official New START declaration, the United States has1,585 strategic nuclear warheads deployed on 778 ICBMs, SLBMs, and strategic bombers [1]. The Federation of American Scientists estimates that the United States' nondeployed strategic arsenal is approximately 2,800 warheads and the U.S. tactical nuclear arsenal numbers 500 warheads. Additional warheads are retired and await dismantlement.
Non-NPT Nuclear Weapons Possessors:
Three states—India, Israel, and Pakistan—never joined the NPT and are known to possess nuclear weapons. Claiming its nuclear program was for peaceful purposes, India first tested a nuclear explosive device in 1974. That test spurred Pakistan to ramp up work on its secret nuclear weapons program. India and Pakistan both publicly demonstrated their nuclear weapon capabilities with a round of tit-for-tat nuclear tests in May 1998. Israel has not publicly conducted a nuclear test, does not admit to or deny having nuclear weapons, and states that it will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Nevertheless, Israel is universally believed to possess nuclear arms. The following arsenal estimates are based on the amount of fissile material—highly enriched uranium and plutonium—that each of the states is estimated to have produced. Fissile material is the key element for making nuclear weapons. India and Israel are believed to use plutonium in their weapons, while Pakistan is thought to use highly enriched uranium.
India: Between 90-110 nuclear warheads. Israel: Between 75 to 200 nuclear warheads. Pakistan: Between 100 to 120 nuclear warheads.
States of Immediate Proliferation Concern:
Iran is pursuing a uranium-enrichment program and other projects that could provide it with the capability to produce bomb-grade fissile material and develop nuclear weapons within the next several years. In contrast, North Korea has the material to produce a small number of nuclear weapons, announced its withdrawal from the NPT, and tested nuclear devices. Uncertainty persists about how many additional nuclear devices North Korea has assembled beyond those it has tested. In September 2005, Pyongyang “committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs.” Iran: No known weapons or sufficient fissile material stockpiles to build weapons. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the institution charged with verifying that states are not illicitly building nuclear weapons, concluded in 2003 that Iran had undertaken covert nuclear activities to establish the capacity to indigenously produce fissile material. The IAEA is continuing its investigation and monitoring of Tehran’s nuclear program. North Korea: Has separated enough plutonium for roughly 6-10 nuclear warheads. North Korea unveiled a centrifuge facility in 2010, buts ability to produce highly-enriched uranium for weapons remains unclear. In August 2013, North Korea restarted the heavy-water reactor it used to extract plutonium in the past for its nuclear warheads. Experts estimate it will be about 18 months before the first new bomb-ready plutonium will be separated from the spent fuel. Syria: In September 2007, Israel conducted an airstrike on what U.S. officials have alleged was the construction site of a nuclear research reactor similar to North Korea’s Yongbyon reactor. Intelligence officials briefed members of congress on the airstrike eight months later in April 2008, discussing the evidence leading to their judgment that the site was an undeclared nuclear reactor. While the extent of Syrian-North Korean nuclear cooperation is unclear, it is believed to have begun in 1997. Subsequent IAEA investigations into the U.S. claims uncovered traces of undeclared man-made uranium particles at both the site of the destroyed facility and Syria’s declared research reactor. Syria has failed to provide adequate cooperation to the IAEA in order to clarify the nature of the destroyed facility and procurement efforts that could be related to a nuclear program.
States That Had Nuclear Weapons or Nuclear Weapons Programs at One Time:
Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine inherited nuclear weapons following the Soviet Union’s 1991 collapse, but returned them to Russia and joined the NPT as non-nuclear-weapon states. South Africa secretly developed and dismantled a small number of nuclear warheads and also joined the NPT in 1991. Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program prior to the 1991 Persian Gulf War, but was forced to verifiably dismantle it under the supervision of UN inspectors. The U.S.-led March 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent capture of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein definitively ended his regime’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. Libya voluntarily renounced its secret nuclear weapons efforts in December 2003. Argentina, Brazil, South Korea, and Taiwan also shelved nuclear weapons programs. ENDNOTE 1. In April 2014 the U.S. State Department issued the latest fact sheet on its data exchange with Russia under New START, sharing the numbers of deployed nuclear warheads and New START-accountable delivery systems held by each country. 2. Revised numbers released on April 29, 2014 by the US State Department. The Defense Department includes in this stockpile active warheads which are operational and deployed or ready to be deployed, and inactive warheads which are maintained "in a non-operational status, and have their tritium bottle removed." It does not include warheads that have been retired and are awaiting dismantlement. Sources: Arms Control Association, Federation of American Scientists, International Panel on Fissile Materials, U.S. Department of Defense, and U.S. Department of State.
The RS-24 Yars also known as RT-24 Yars (NATO reporting name: SS-27 Mod 2[4]) is a RussianMIRV-equipped,thermonuclearintercontinental ballistic missile first tested on May 29, 2007 after a secret military R&D project, to replace the older R-36 and UR-100N that have been in use for nearly 50 years.[5][6] RS-24 is a missile that is heavier than the currentTopol-M (which can carry up to 10 independently targetable warheads).[7] The 2007 tests were publicized as a response to themissile shield that the United States were planning to deploy in Europe.[8][9] RS-24 has been deployed operationally since 2010.
Asserted by the Russian government as being designed to defeat present and potential anti-missile systems,[10][11] the ICBM was first tested by a launch from a mobile launcher at the Plesetsk Cosmodrome in northwestern Russia at 11:20 GMT, May 29, 2007 and its test warheads landed on target about 5,750 km (3,573 mi) away at the Kura Test Range in Far EasternKamchatka Peninsula.[12][13][14]
The second launch from Plesetsk to the Kura Test Range was conducted on December 25, 2007 at 13:10 GMT. It successfully reached its destination. The third successful launch from the Plesetsk space center in northwest Russia was conducted on November 26, 2008 at 13:20 GMT. The missile's multiple re-entry vehicles successfully landed on targets on the Kura testing range.[15][16]
Neither the development nor deployment of RS-24 is likely to be threatened by the enforcement of the New START treaty.[17] It was again tested on 24 December 2013 from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome in northwest Russia.[18]
On April 2014, Moscow's Strategic Missile Forces test-fired the RS-24 Yars equipped with re-entry warhead from Plesetsk, 800 km northeast of Moscow.
The launch took place at about 10:40am local time.[citation needed]
"The main task of the launch was to confirm the reliability of a batch of missiles manufactured at the Votkinsk plant, in Udmurtia," said Colonel Igor Yegorov, spokesperson for the defence ministry's Strategic Missile Force unit, reports ITAR TASS news agency.Moscow's latest test has come amid the deepening crisis in the eastern Ukrainian cities (From International Business Times, April 14, 2014).
In June 2008 the chief designer of the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology, Yuri Solomonov, announced that the RS-24 is an enhanced, MIRVed development of the Topol-Mmissile that would finish all testing in 2008 and most likely be deployed in 2009.[19] According to General Nikolai Solovtsov, the commander of the Strategic Rocket Forces (SRF), the first RS-24 missiles will be deployed in Teykovo in 2009.[20]
On March 17, 2009 General Solovtsov announced that the first regiment of RS-24 ICBMs will be put into service in December 2009 when START-1 is set to expire.[21] He later repeated that statement on May 7.[22] According to the Russian rocket forces the first six RS-24 missiles will be mobile.[23]
Further on October 10, 2009, on ITAR-TASS, General Andrei Shvaichenko, the new SRF commander, confirmed the December 2009 deployment of the RS-24 which will support the existing Topol-M (RS-12М2) missile complex.[24]
Testing for the new-generation ICBM was completed in mid-July 2010, and the first missiles were deployed shortly after on July 19.[25]
In December 2010 the 54th Guards Rocket Division in Teykovo received its second delivery of RS-24 missile systems. In total 6 missiles were deployed by the end of 2010.[26] 3 more mobile missile systems were deployed in July 2011 and then the first regiment was operational.[27] In December 2011 first division of second regiment with 3 missiles was put on combat duty and second division will be deployed by 2011 year end.[28] On 16 August 2012 it was reported that a second regiment of the 54th Guards Rocket Division in Teikovo, central Russia will be fully equipped with Yars mobile ballistic missile systems in 2012, said Strategic Missile Forces (SMF) spokesman Col.Vadim Koval.
Russia fully deployed the first Yars regiment consisting of three battalions in August 2011, and put two battalions of the second regiment on combat duty on December 27, 2011. The deployment of the third battalion of the second regiment completed the rearming of the Teikovo division with Yars systems. The two regiments consist of a total of 18 missile systems and several mobile command posts. Two more missile divisions will start receiving the Yars systems in 2013.[29]
The 39th Guards Rocket Division, at Novosibirsk in Siberia, will receive mobile Yars systems, while the 28th Guards Rocket Division at Kozelsk (in central Russia) will be armed with the silo-based version of the system.The Strategic Missile Troops said that the Topol-M and RS-24 ballistic missiles would be the mainstay of the ground-based component of Russia's nuclear triad and would account for no less than 80% of the SMF's arsenal by 2016.[30]
Chinese eye 'supercavitation' technology as future of underwater travel
China has moved a step closer to creating a supersonic submarine that could travel from Shanghai to San Francisco in less than two hours.
New technology developed by a team of scientists at Harbin Institute of Technology's Complex Flow and Heat Transfer Lab has made it easier for a submarine, or torpedo, to travel at extremely high speeds underwater.
Li Fengchen, professor of fluid machinery and engineering, said the team's innovative approach meant they could now create the complicated air "bubble" required for rapid underwater travel. "We are very excited by its potential," he said.
Water produces more friction, or drag, on an object than air, which means conventional submarines cannot travel as fast as an aircraft.
However, during the cold war, the Soviet military developed a technology called supercavitation, which involves enveloping a submerged vessel inside an air bubble to avoid problems caused by water drag.
A Soviet supercavitation torpedo called Shakval was able to reach a speed of 370km/h or more - much faster than any other conventional torpedoes.
In theory, a supercavitating vessel could reach the speed of sound underwater, or about 5,800km/h, which would reduce the journey time for a transatlantic underwater cruise to less than an hour, and for a transpacific journey to about 100 minutes, according to a report by California Institute of Technology in 2001.
However, supercavitation technology has faced two major problems. First, the submerged vessel has needed to be launched at high speeds, approaching 100km/h, to generate and maintain the air bubble.
Second, it is extremely difficult - if not impossible - to steer the vessel using conventional mechanisms, such as a rudder, which are inside the bubble without any direct contact with water.
As a result, its application has been limited to unmanned vessels, such as torpedoes, but nearly all of these torpedoes were fired in a straight line because they had limited ability to turn.
Li said the team of Chinese scientists had found an innovative means of addressing both problems.
Once in the water, the team's supercavitation vessel would constantly "shower" a special liquid membrane on its own surface. Although this membrane would be worn off by water, in the meantime it could significantly reduce the water drag on the vessel at low speed.
After its speed had reached 75km/h or more the vessel would enter the supercavitation state. The man-made liquid membrane on the vessel surface could help with steering because, with precise control, different levels of friction could be created on different parts of the vessel.
"Our method is different from any other approach, such as vector propulsion," or thrust created by an engine, Li said. "By combining liquid-membrane technology with supercavitation, we can significantly reduce the launch challenges and make cruising control easier."
However, Li said many problems still needed to be solved before supersonic submarine travel became feasible. Besides the control issue, a powerful underwater rocket engine still had to be developed to give the vessel a longer range. The effective range of the Russian supercavitation torpedoes, for example, was only between 11 km and 15 km.
Li said the supercavitation technology was not limited only to military use. In future, it could benefit civilian underwater transport, or water sports such as swimming.
"If a swimsuit can create and hold many tiny bubbles in water, it can significantly reduce the water drag; swimming in water could be as effortless as flying in the sky," he said.
Besides Russia, countries such as Germany, Iran and the United States have been developing vessels or weapons using supercavitation technology.
Professor Wang Guoyu, the head of the Fluid Mechanics Laboratory at Beijing Institute of Technology who is leading another state-funded research project on supercavitation, said the global research community had been troubled for decades by the lack of innovative ideas to address the huge scientific and engineering challenges.
"The size of the bubble is difficult to control, and the vessel is almost impossible to steer," he said. While cruising at high speed during supercavitation, a fin could be snapped off if it touched the water because of the liquid's far greater density.
Despite many scientists worldwide working on similar projects, the latest progress remains unclear because they are regarded as military secrets.
Wang, a member of the water armament committee of the China Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, said even he had been kept in the dark about recent supercavitation developments in China.
"The primary drive still comes from the military, so most research projects are shrouded in secrecy," he said.
Design began in the 1960s when the NII-24 research institute was ordered to produce a new weapon system capable of combating nuclear submarines. In 1969, the GSKB-47 merged with NII-24 to create the Research Institute of Applied Hydromechanics in Kiev, Ukraine (constructor Merkulov); the Shkval being a product of this merger.
Announced as being deployed in the early 1990s, although previously operational as early as 1977,[1] the Shkval is designed as a countermeasure against torpedoes launched by undetected enemy submarines. It may also be used as a counter to incoming torpedoes whereby it is launched at the enemy submarine, forcing it to evade, and hopefully cutting the guidance wire to the enemy torpedo in the process.
Shkval nose cone
Shkval rear, showing the guidance fins and the electronics connector
The speed of the VA-111 far exceeds that of any standard torpedo currently fielded by NATO. This speed is a result ofsupercavitation: the torpedo is, in effect, flying in a gas bubble created by outward deflection of water by its specially shapednose cone and the expansion of gases from its engine. By keeping water from coming into contact with the surface of the body of the torpedo, drag is significantly reduced, allowing extremely high speeds.
Launched from 533 mm torpedo tubes, the VA-111 exits the tube at 50 knots (93 km/h). Shortly afterwards, its liquid-fuel rocket ignites and propels it to speeds of up to 200 knots (370 km/h). Some reports indicate that speeds of 250+ knots may be achieved, and that work on a 300-knot (560 km/h) version was underway.[2] The rocket engine uses a combination of high test peroxide and kerosene; the propellant tanks contain about 1500 kg of hydrogen peroxide and 500 kg of kerosene.[3]
Early designs may have relied solely on an inertial guidance system.[4][5] The initial design was intended for nuclear warheaddelivery. Later designs reportedly include terminal guidance and conventional warheads of 210 kg (460 lb).[6]
The torpedo controls its direction using four fins that skim the inner surface of the supercavitation envelope. To change direction, the fin or fins on the inside of the desired turn are extended, and the opposing fins are retracted. To make faster turns, the push plate on the nose can be used to control the shape of the bubble the missile is traveling in.
The torpedo is manufactured in Kyrgyzstan by a state-owned factory. In 2012 the Russian government purchased a 75% ownership of the factory in exchange for writing off massive Kyrgyz debt to Russia. [7]
VA-111 Shkval - Original variant; GOLIS autonomous inertial guidance.
"Shkval 2" - Current variant; believed to have additional guidance systems, possibly via the use of vectored thrust, and with much longer range.
A less capable version currently being exported to various third world navies. The export version is sometimes referred to as "Shkval-E"[citation needed] by Western analysts.
In 2000, former U.S. Naval intelligence officer and an alleged DIA spy Edmond Pope (Captain, USN, retired) was held, tried, and convicted in Russia of espionage related to information he obtained about the Shkval weapon system. Russian President Vladimir Putin pardoned Pope in December 2000, allegedly on humanitarian grounds because he had bone cancer.[9][10]
RSS Feed
Twitter
Facebook
1:53 PM
Kel
New technology developed by a team of scientists at Harbin Institute of Technology's Complex Flow and Heat Transfer Lab has made it easier for a submarine, or torpedo, to travel at extremely high speeds underwater.
