shot

“Who the hell thought that a movie could be shot here?”

by

When the team ‘The Odyssey‘ arrived at the Universal studios in Los Angeles after months of filming in Morocco, Greece, Iceland and Scotland, someone said: “How difficult is it going to be to film in a studio now?” Shortly afterward they were enduring Nolan putting some jet engines very close to them. It’s the Nolan method. And with ‘The Odyssey’ the method has included filming in the most inhospitable places. Who the hell is it going to be? Matt Damon, who plays Ulysses in this adaptation whose premiere will be next July 17, sums up this spirit with the question that was repeated every time they arrived at a new location: “Who the hell thought that a movie could be shot here?” The answer, obviously, was always the same person. It always occurs to him. I hate sets. Nolan seems to choose impossible locations precisely because they are impossible. According to your own philosophy A director’s job is to look for “magical moments in real places: a real sunset, a real castle.” For example: Nolan wanted to film in the Castello di Santa Caterina, in Sicily, as the setting for Ithaca. To reach the top you had to climb 275 meters along a path that was too narrow for the technical team. The solution was, after ruling out building an alternative road on the back slope, to install a scaffolding platform on the slope capable of supporting 200 people. Robert Pattinson and Tom Holland, of course, had to make the climb every day in “Roman clothing.” Any given Tuesday on a Nolan shoot. Ninety-one days, six countries, 610 kilometers of film. The Odyssey was filmed between February and August 2025 in six countries: Morocco, Greece, Italy, Iceland, Scotland and the United States. The total footage captured on 70mm IMAX film exceeds 610 kilometers and production wrapped nine days ahead of schedule. Despite this, the tour of different countries was, according to Matt Damon, an eternal unfulfilled promise: “Well, it will be easier in Iceland,” they said to each other. And then it rained heavily and it was bitterly cold. When they arrived in Los Angeles, the only environment they expected to be controlled, good old studio Hollywood, Nolan stuck some jet engines in their faces to simulate a storm. Tied to a boat. One of Matt Damon’s most memorable sequences is the one in which he was tied to a real mast, on a real ship, in the open sea. According to him, these types of challenges did not make him nervous, but rather made it easier for him to prepare: “Knowing that it’s going to be like this is a real gift for an actor because you already know how to prepare. It’s not about arriving on set and being told: ‘Oh, to shoot the scene we’re going to tie you to a mast.’” Bye bye. All the interviews that Matt Damon has been giving for months to talk about ‘The Odyssey’ have a nostalgic tone. He told GQ that this type of production “is disappearing” and that he was aware of having filmed something that would possibly never be repeated, at least for him, and that that made it “something finite, like a gift.” The counterpoint is that of Nolan himself, who claims that he has been hearing the same thing since ‘Inception’ in 2010, when he was told that filming in seven countries was impossible. “I thought we’d find a way to make it happen,” he says. And until now.

Ukraine turned drones into hunters. A helicopter shot down in Hormuz has transformed them into a Spielberg film

by

In April 1944, a small Sikorsky YR-4 helicopter went behind Japanese lines in Burma to rescue four soldiers isolated. That operation is considered the first military combat rescue carried out by a helicopter and opened a new era in the recovery of personnel under enemy fire. More than 80 years later, another innovation has just taken an equally transcendent step. Apache shot down at the most delicate moment. The fragile truce between the United States and Iran was brought to the brink of collapse when a US AH-64 Apache attack helicopter fell into nearby waters to the Strait of Hormuz during a patrol mission. Trump claimed that the aircraft had been shot down by Iran and promised a military responsewhile different American sources suggested that the impact would have been caused by an Iranian drone, possibly a Shahed. Although it remains completely unclear whether the attack was deliberate or accidental, the incident had a huge symbolic load because it occurred in one of the most sensitive points on the planet, through which a fifth of the world’s oil transits and where Washington and Iran have been facing each other for months in a war of attrition marked by naval blockades, air attacks and constant episodes of tension. Ah64 The immediate response. The political reaction was almost as rapid as the incident itself. trump publicly declared that the United States had to respond to the shootdown and a few hours later the US Central Command announced retaliatory attacks against Iranian targets. Although operations seemed to remain within from a limited framework to avoid a new generalized escalation, the episode demonstrated the extent to which the ceasefire remained extremely fragile. The statements of Iranian officialscombining references to diplomacy with veiled warnings, made clear that both sides were trying to avoid outright war while continuing to send messages of strength to each other on the ground. The real event. However, the most relevant thing about the entire sequence was not the fall of the Apache or the subsequent retaliation. The truly revolutionary thing happened when the two surviving crew members were rescued. For decades, combat search and rescue operations have depended on helicopters, specialized aircraft and human teams that had to enter extremely dangerous areas to recover downed pilots. In Ukraine we have seen drones attacking, watching, taking prisoners, guiding artillerytransporting supplies and even intercepting other dronesbut the conflict between the United States and Iran has just shown something different: for the first time an autonomous naval drone He recovered two soldiers in the water and brought them to safety. It is an advance that until very recently seemed like something out of a science fiction movie and that marks a conceptual leap as important as the one represented by the arrival of the first combat drones. The Corsair and the birth of a new mission. They remembered the TWZ analysts that the protagonist of this operation was the corsairan unmanned vessel developed by the Saronic company and operated by Task Force 59 of the US Navy. Measuring 7 meters in length, capable of sailing more than 1,800 kilometers and with a high level of autonomy, the system located the two pilots, picked them up at sea and moved them to a safe area where they were later evacuated by helicopter. What is really new is that the Corsair was not initially conceived for rescues, but for maritime surveillancerecognition and tracking of vessels. The incident has shown that these systems can take on much more complex and delicate tasks, becoming a kind of first step in rescue capable of penetrating areas that are too dangerous for manned platforms. Lesson learned after years of high-risk rescues. The US military has been concerned for years about the vulnerability of its search and rescue units. Previous operations, such as pilot recovery shot down inside Iran or rescue missions in heavily defended scenarios, forced helicopters, planes and specialized personnel to be exposed to enormous risks. He use of the Corsair offers a completely new alternative. Instead of immediately sending a manned aircraft to an area threatened by missiles, drones or anti-aircraft defenses, an autonomous vehicle can arrive first, secure survivors and transport them to a point where other means operate more safely. It is a solution that reduces human risks and greatly expands the possibilities of action in future high-intensity conflicts. From the Strait of Hormuz to the Pacific. The implications go far beyond the Gulf of Oman. The US Navy already imagines networks of autonomous vessels distributed over entire regionsespecially in the Pacific, capable of monitoring sea routes, detecting threats, supporting military operations and, if necessary, rescuing downed or shipwrecked pilots. The concept is reminiscent of a network of mobile emergency stations spread over huge ocean areas. The Apache experience shows that these systems are no longer simple floating sensors or surveillance platforms, but rather operational actors capable of intervening directly in critical situations. The next silent revolution. The Ukrainian war turned drones in absolute protagonists of the modern battlefield and transformed the way we understand ground combat. However, the Apache episode points towards a new evolution. The great advance no longer consists only of using drones to destroy targets, but in trusting them with missions traditionally reserved for human beings. The rescue of the two American pilots represents the first known example of a personnel recovery executed by an autonomous vessel in a real military environment. It may seem like a minor detail compared to missiles, airstrikes or strategic retaliation, but it will probably be remembered as one of those discrete moments that herald a much more profound transformation: the moment when drones stopped being just weapons or hunters and also became rescuers. Image | US Navy In Xataka | The US had a ship with 2,000 marines ready to invade Iran. Now he has sent it right to the place where China worries the most In Xataka | In Lebanon, the war is becoming difficult to explain: drones to take over a 1,000-year-old … Read more

That Iran shot down a US F-15 was something unusual. The problem is that they have opened the missile… and everything points to China

by

In 1960, when an American U-2 spy plane was shot down over the Soviet UnionWashington initially believed it was facing a military problem. He ended up discovering that the incident had diplomatic consequences much larger and blew up a summit between the two superpowers. Because sometimes a single downed plane reveals a story much bigger than the battle in which it fell. The takedown that changed the conversation. He downing of an F-15E on Iran last month was, in itself, an extraordinary event. It had been decades since a United States fighter had been shot down by enemy fire, and the rescue movie operation later, with one of the crew hiding for two days in the Zagros Mountains, underlined the seriousness of the episode. However, as investigations continue, the incident is shifting from being a story about Iranian military capabilities to something else: a story about China. According to cited sources by NBC News the suspicion that the plane was hit by a portable anti-aircraft missile (MANPADS) of Chinese manufacture has shifted the focus from the battlefield to a much more uncomfortable question for Washington: to what extent Beijing is helping to sustain Tehran’s military capacity. More important than the missile. From a military point of view, a portable anti-aircraft missile is not a revolutionary weapon. Its appeal lies precisely on the contrary: It is relatively cheap, easy to deploy, and capable of threatening even extremely sophisticated platforms if circumstances are favorable. Hence, what has aroused American interest is not so much the type of weapon used as its possible origin. If suspicions are correct, the shootdown would demonstrate that Chinese technology has ended up participatingdirectly or indirectly, in one of the more symbolic hits suffered by American aviation in years. From that perspective, the discussion then stops revolving around how Iran managed to shoot down an F-15 and begins to focus on what role played China to make it possible. The shadow of broader support. Because suspicions are not limited to the missile. US sources also suggest that China may have provided Iran with radar systems capable of detecting stealth aircraft and access to space capabilities that would facilitate the location of targets. So far none of these accusations have been conclusively proven publicly and Beijing categorically rejects them, but together they paint an image that is worrying in Washington: that of a technological support network which, without involving direct military involvement, could significantly increase Iran’s ability to challenge the United States and its allies. In this context, the downed F-15 becomes tangible proof of a broader phenomenon that US officials have been denouncing for some time. The contradiction of American diplomacy. The situation is especially delicate because the United States simultaneously needs to contain Iran and keep channels open with China. Beijing is the main buyer of the iranian oil and one of the few actors with enough influence to put economic pressure on Tehran. During negotiations to reach a ceasefire, the Trump administration sought precisely that collaboration. But every new accusation on Chinese missiles, radars or satellites used by Iran complicates that balance. Washington thus finds itself in an uncomfortable position: it needs China to contribute to stabilizing the region while accusing it of providing tools that strengthen one of its main adversaries in the Middle East. The real message. That’s why the downing of the F-15 It has a relevance that goes far beyond the loss of a plane. What is at stake is not only the effectiveness of Iranian defenses, but the American perception that more and more regional conflicts are connected to global strategic competition. against China. The investigation on the missile seeks to determine how the fighter fell, but also who was behind the technology that made it possible. In a sense, Washington has opened up the missile to examine it piece by piece, and in doing so has discovered that the biggest questions no longer point solely to Tehran. They aim more and more towards Beijingwhere the United States believes is a growing part of the economic, technological and military infrastructure that allows its rivals to challenge its power in different corners of the world. Image | U.S. Force In Xataka | The US has copied its very cheap drone swarms from Iran and Russia. The problem is what Starlink asks for connecting them In Xataka | The war in the East has reached an unexpected agreement: one where the US does not discuss Iran’s missiles, bombs or uranium

soldiers who return with a different face after a medical leave have been shot

by

A few years ago, a survey carried out among young South Koreans revealed a fact very unusual in any other country: a significant portion of respondents believed that receiving cosmetic surgery as a graduation gift It was something completely normal. In fact, in cities like Seoul, clinic ads take up entire buildings and some neighborhoods. hundreds of centers accumulate specialized a few meters from each other. The hype has now reached the military. An unexpected problem. Yes, the South Korean military is discovering a problem that just a few years ago would have seemed absurd even there: more and more soldiers are returning from leave. with aesthetic operations recent events that directly affect the functioning of military units. The Korean Times said that there is everything from recently operated noses to swollen eyelids or faces still recovering that are forcing officers to exclude soldiers from training, night guards or physical tasks for medical and security reasons. What was once a relatively exceptional thing reserved for the last months of military service has become in a trend much broader among South Korean Generation Z. And the phenomenon reflects the extent to which the country’s aesthetic culture no longer affects only to civilian lifebut also to one of the most rigid and traditional institutions of the State: the army. The aesthetic pressure. Basically, something that we have counted before. South Korea has been one of the world epicenters for years of cosmetic surgery. Eyelid operations, rhinoplasties or facial retouching are part of an extremely competitive culture where physical appearance influences in social relationships, employment and status. What is new is that this logic has fully penetrated young soldiers on active duty. Many apparently take advantage of higher military pay and leave to save and submit to operations while they remain deployed. Some even prioritize surgery over any other personal expense. Gangnam District Clinics Offer specific discounts for the military and use social networks to attract young clients, while online forums are filled with questions from soldiers about recovery times compatible with military life. Clash between military discipline and culture. The problem for the commanders is not only medical, but organizational. When a soldier returns with swollen eyes after eyelid surgery or a rhinoplasty still healing, someone has to cover his guards, exercises or physical duties. South Korean officers they start to describe uncomfortable situations where they must reorganize entire training sessions to avoid risks or possible legal liabilities if a recent operation becomes complicated. Furthermore, some commanders are even receiving parent calls asking for special treatment for their children while they recover from cosmetic procedures. The scene reflects a very profound cultural clash: an army designed around collective discipline and sacrifice that begins to confront much more individualistic values. typical of Generation Z. Absence of clear rules. The Times remembered that one of the biggest problems is that the South Korean army practically has no specific regulation to manage this phenomenon. Military regulations cover medical discharges and injuries, but not situations where a soldier voluntarily decides to have surgery for cosmetic reasons in the middle of service. That leaves officers caught in a difficult position. If they allow certain exceptions, they generate discomfort among other soldiers forced to assume more workload. If they are not allowed and a medical complication occurs, they may face disciplinary or legal responsibilities. The result is an organizational void which is beginning to directly affect the operational preparation of some units. A transformation that worries the army. Beyond the specific surgeries, the case reveals a transformation much deeper within South Korea. If you will, the army is discovering that digital culture, social networks and aesthetic obsession of South Korean society are even changing the way young people live military service mandatory. For many recruits, improving their appearance is no longer something secondary that is left for after the army, but an immediate priority integrated within their own personal and social identity. And that is forcing the armed forces to adapt to a completely new reality: a generation that can accept military discipline, but at the same time still considers it perfectly normal to return from leave with a different face. Image | RawPixel, Unsplash, Republic of Korea Armed Forces In Xataka | Military submarines as “five-star hotels”: this is South Korea’s bid to enter the Western market In Xataka | In 1995, South Korea suffered one of the great architectural disasters of the century. The culprit: the air conditioning

The US believed it had crushed Iran’s missile city. They have counted the complexes again, and it is as if they had shot in the air

by

During the Gulf War, several American pilots returned convinced they had completely destroyed numerous Iraqi underground shelters. Days later, reconnaissance images revealed something disconcerting: Many of those complexes were still active because the explosions had barely blocked secondary entrances while the main infrastructure remained intact under tons of rock and concrete. The big surprise. For weeks, the White House presented the campaign against Iran as a crushing demonstration of modern military power: stealth bombers, precision missiles and coordinated attacks with Israel that had supposedly left the Iranian strategic network reduced to rubble. donald trump came to affirm that Tehran already “had nothing” in military terms and that its missiles had been dispersed and out of combat. However, the new secret evaluations US intelligence agencies describe a radically different and deeply uncomfortable scenario for Washington. After reanalyzing satellite images, underground access and logistical activity, American analysts discovered that Iran maintains operational 30 of its 33 complexes of missiles in the Strait of Hormuz and retains a good part of its mobile launchers and arsenals, in addition to having recovered the 90% access of its underground facilities. The feeling within some national security sectors is beginning to be disturbing: after spending thousands of missiles and selling the world the idea of ​​total destruction, the immense Iranian “missile city” remains practically where it was at the beginning. Architecture of a fortress. Here you have to remember something what do we count weeks ago. The real problem for the United States is not just how many missiles Iran retains, but how they were built and distributed their complexes for decades. Tehran turned entire mountains into underground defensive systemswith tunnels, protected warehouses, redundant access and mobile platforms capable of moving missiles from one point to another even after a bombing. Many installations were not designed to resist a specific attack, but to ensure that they always there will be something operational after any initial wave. That’s where the intelligence reports are causing real concern: Many of the entrances were temporarily sealed, but not completely destroyed, and the vast majority of the complexes they regained access operational in a matter of weeks. In some cases, the Iranians may even continue to launch missiles directly from the facilities themselves. The result is a very different image from the American public narrative: rather than eliminating the threat, Washington seems to have scratched the surface of an infrastructure conceived precisely to survive a war of technological attrition. The hidden price of the operation. The other great revelation of the conflict is not underground in Iran, but inside the own US arsenals. The campaign consumed gigantic amounts of advanced ammunition: more than a thousand stealth cruise missiles, around a thousand Tomahawks and more than 1,300 Patriot interceptors, figures that are equivalent to entire years of industrial production. The Pentagon attempted to balance two incompatible priorities: destroying extremely hardened Iranian complexes and, at the same time, do not empty completely its strategic reserves in the face of possible future crises with China or North Korea. This limitation explains part of the most controversial tactical decisions of the war. Rather spray completely many underground complexes, planners opted to seal access and entrances using fewer bunker buster bombs than necessary to destroy the entire facility. Now the consequences are beginning to appear starkly: it spent enormous amounts of high-end weapons, but the Iranian network continues to retain significant operational capacity. Hormuz as center of gravity. All of this takes on an even more delicate dimension due to where most of Iran’s surviving capacity is concentrated: the Strait of Hormuz. Approximately a fifth of the world’s oil circulates through that maritime strip, and US intelligence believes that Iran maintains enough missiles and launchers there to to continue threatening warships, oil tankers and critical infrastructure. The US Navy maintains a practically continuous presence in the area with more than twenty ships patrolling and holding the blockade, but the strategic reality is beginning to become uncomfortable: even after a gigantic military campaign, Washington has not been able to eliminate Iran’s ability to turn Hormuz into a nightmare for global trade. There is no doubt, this persistence completely alters the initial perception of the war. What seemed like a demonstration of technological supremacy is also beginning to look like a warning about the real limits of modern air power against deeply dispersed underground networks. The political contradiction. Ultimately, the conclusions of the intelligence “count” They are also opening an increasingly visible political rift in Washington. While the White House publicly insists that the operation was a historic success and accuses those who question that story of “virtual betrayal,” internal reports describe a enemy far away of being neutralized. And the contradiction threatens to become both a strategic and political problem. If the ceasefire collapses, Trump would have to decide between accepting that Iran retains a relevant military capability or relaunching an even more costly campaign using ammunition reserves that will most likely take years to recover. The dilemma is especially delicate because European allies They already fear delays in arms deliveries destined for Ukraine due to American industrial wear. The war against Iran was designed to demonstrate strength and restore deterrence, but what is beginning to emerge, however, is another, much more uncomfortable reading: that even the most powerful military machine on the planet may discover too late that destroying a “missile city” buried under mountains is much more difficult than announcing its destruction on television. Image | Iranian Media In Xataka | Suddenly, a military outpost sprouted up in the Iraq desert: it was Israel in its bombing campaign of Iran In Xataka | While everyone was looking at Hormuz, Russia has found a much more important route to supply drones to Iran

Not only has the US just lost the “eye” that Hormuz watched, its nuclear aircraft carrier is in Africa for fear of being shot down

by

Year 2019, an American surveillance drone more than 200 million of dollars disappears from the radar over the Gulf of Oman and, a few hours later, Iran shows its remains to the world on television. It was not the first time something like this had happened, but it was one of the most uncomfortable: a machine designed to see everything had been seen before it could react. Since then, in that part of the map, each silence in the systems begins to weigh more than it seems. Losing the “eye” that watched Hormuz. Confirmation of the fall of MQ-4C Triton a few hours ago is not a simple technical incident, but the loss of one of the most advanced pieces of the US surveillance system in the Persian Gulf. This drone, capable of operating at high altitude for hours and equipped with cutting-edge sensors, was key to monitor naval movementsdetect threats and maintain situational control around the strait. His disappearance, under circumstances still unclearleaves a most uncomfortable void at a time when every piece of information matters, especially in an environment where mines, drones and speedboats turn any mistake into a real threat. The “scared” aircraft carrier. Plus: the diversion of USS George H.W. Bush Going around Africa instead of crossing the Suez Canal is not just any logistical decision, but a symptom of that operational vulnerability What Washington is suffering from. The reason? Avoid passing through Bab el-Mandeb It means recognizing that even a nuclear aircraft carrier battle group, one of the most powerful assets in the world, cannot guarantee their security in a strait where actors such as the Houthis have demonstrated the ability to attack ships with drones and missiles. This detour not only lengthens times and complicates deployments, but also shows that military superiority does not always translate into freedom of movement. The uncomfortable precedent. Not only that. They counted the Forbes analysts that the decision of avoid Bab el-Mandeb It raises a disturbing question for the immediate future, because if this step is already considered too dangerous, what happens to Hormuz, much narrower, guarded and saturated with Iranian defensive systems? The logic is a huge question. Iran not only has more advanced technology than its regional allies, but also decades of specific preparation for that scenario. That makes any attempt to operate there a very high risk betand where even a single relevant impact could completely alter the strategic balance of the area. The strategic paradox. If you also want, what emerges from these movements is not that image of overflowing force that is presupposed, but rather of calculation and extreme fear. While American political discourse speaks of pressure, blockade and control, tactical decisions are revealing prudence, we would even say caution. The simple fact that the route of a nuclear aircraft carrier is redesigned to avoid a hot spot shows that the margin of error it’s tiny. And in an environment where a successful attack on a high-value ship could trigger disproportionate military and political consequences, the priority is no longer projecting strength and power, but avoiding losses at all costs. When losing a little is too much. In summary, the combination of drone crash Triton and the rnuclear aircraft carrier odeo paints a crystal clear picture: right now, the United States is not operating from a position of comfort, but rather in an extremely delicate balance. In that scenario, it doesn’t take a devastating blow to change the rules of the game, just with a symbolic one. Because a lost surveillance drone may be acceptable, even if it has the characteristics of the MQ-4C, but a damaged warship or a compromised nuclear aircraft carrier would be a very different story. Image | USN In Xataka | The US already has the first response to its blockade of Hormuz: a boomerang of unpredictable consequences called China In Xataka | The US has closed all exits from the Strait of Hormuz. And now Iran can put into practice what it has been preparing for 25 years

While the world looked at Iran, China has seized an island in the Pacific without a single shot. And now he is militarizing it

by

For some time now, some countries have been capable of creating land where before there was only open sea, modifying entire maps in a matter of years. These transformations, visible even from space, have come to alter trade routes, ecosystems and regional balances without the need for major confrontations. Because sometimes, the most decisive changes do not begin with a conflict, but with a work that no one stops. A conquest without shooting. While international attention was completely absorbed by the crisis in the middle eastChina has executed a quiet but deeply strategic move in the South China Sea. They counted in Forbes which, without the need for direct military force, has transformed a tiny island, a reef barely visible on the map, into a new key piece of your network of maritime control, taking advantage of the global distraction and the lack of immediate reaction. The late response from countries like Vietnam and the initial silence of the international community have allowed this movement to advance practically without opposition, consolidating a fait accompli before the debate even began. From sandbank to strategic base in months. Through satellite images, the Telegraph explained that the pace of construction at Antelope Reef It revealed extraordinary industrial and logistical capacity, with dozens of dredgers working in coordination to create square kilometers of land in a matter of months. What was once a simple sandbank has now become an expanding platform with visible infrastructurefortified perimeters and enough space to house much more complex facilities. This speed not only demonstrates the ambition of the project, but also Beijing’s ability to alter the physical terrain of the conflict before other actors can react. The image on the left corresponds to December 19, 2025. The image on the right corresponds to February 17, 2026 Legality as a tool, not as a limit. China has accompanied this expansion with a parallel strategy based on reinterpreting international law and presenting construction as an internal issue, diluting the legal conflict in a narrative of civil development. The problem? That, under the framework of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, these constructions they do not grant new rights sovereigns, which places the project in a clearly controversial and diffuse area. Still, the combination of fait accompli and legal argument allows Beijing to move forward no need for confrontation directly, moving the conflict to the diplomatic and narrative terrain. Militarization without concealment. Unlike previous phases, where China denied the militarization of its artificial islands, the current development clearly points for military use from the beginning. The dimensions of the land allow the construction of landing strips capable to operate advanced fightersas well as the future installation of radars, missile systems and surveillance networks. In other words, more than a simple base, the enclave emerges as a node within a larger architecture that connects ports, maritime militias and intelligence capabilities, reinforcing control over one of the most strategic routes on the planet. A new balance under the sea. If you will, too, the result of this effort is a quiet but profound shift in the regional balance, one where each new island expands China’s capabilities. to monitor, deter and project power without resorting to open confrontations. From that perspective, these types of movements, cumulative and discrete, allow consolidate strategic advantages that only become evident when it’s too late to reverse them. Thus, while the world’s focus shifted towards other conflictsChina has continued to redefine the map of the Pacific in its favor, demonstrating that in modern geopolitics it is not always whoever shoots first who wins, but whoever builds without being interrupted. Image | Planet L. In Xataka | Satellite images have revealed something disturbing in China: where there were once villages, there are now unmistakable structures In Xataka | The most buoyant market right now is selling streaming and satellite images of US movements to Iran.

The United Kingdom has a laser capable of shooting down drones flying at 650 km/h. And each shot is the same as two beers.

by

For some time now, armies have pursued an idea: weapons that fire energy instead of projectiles. Already in the Cold War was experienced with systems capable of concentrating heat at a distance, although technical limitations relegated them to tests and prototypes for years. Today, with advances in electrical generation and beam control, that ambition has begun to emerge from the laboratory, although it still entailed challenges that for a long time seemed impossible to solve. The UK seems to have solved the most important one. From the laboratory to real combat. He DragonFire program marks a turning point in the evolution of directed energy weapons, and it does so by going from technological demonstrator to embedded operating system. The United Kingdom has decided to accelerate its deployment until 2027integrating it into Type 45 destroyers and becoming the first European country from NATO in deploying a functional naval laser. There is no doubt, the movement is not only technological, but also doctrinal, because it implies changing the way in which air defense at sea is conceived, integrating new layers that do not depend on traditional ammunition. Two beers for the price of a shot. The key element of DragonFire is not only its accuracy, but rather its economy. Each shot costs just about 10 pounds (just over 11 euros) in electricity, just a couple of “pints” in a pub compared to the hundreds of thousands that a conventional interceptor missile can cost, which completely alters the balance between attack and defense. we had seen it in Ukraine and now in Iran. In a scenario where cheap drones are launched by the dozens or hundreds, responding with expensive missiles had become unsustainable, while a laser allows the pace to be maintained. without depleting critical resources. This difference makes the laser an especially attractive tool in modern conflicts where saturation is more important than sophistication. Extreme precision and new capabilities. The system has proven capable of hitting targets the size of a coin a kilometer away, maintaining the beam on moving targets until causing structural failure. More: its architecture combines multiple fiber lasers in a single high-quality beam, guided by electro-optical sensors and continuous tracking systems. Furthermore, its sustained firing capability eliminates one of the main limitations of conventional weapons: need to rechargeallowing you to take on multiple threats consecutively in a matter of seconds. The response to swarms. The rise of cheap drones and swarm attacks has put in check to traditional defense systems, designed to intercept more limited and higher value threats. DragonFire positions itself as the direct response to that change, offering an effective solution against small, fast and numerous targets without compromising missile arsenals intended for strategic threats. In this context, the laser does not replace existing systems, but rather complements themreinforcing short-range defense and freeing up resources for more complex scenarios. From sea to air and land. Beyond its naval deployment, the program aims for broader integration in ground and aerial platformswhich infers a structural change in modern weaponry. Let us think that the possibility of standardizing this type of technology in vehicles, ships or even combat fighters opens the door to a new generation of systems where energy progressively replaces to physical ammunition. Analysts recalled by Army Recognition that although there are still limitations (such as the need for line of sight, electrical power and thermal management), the advancement of DragonFire indicates that that concept before fantastic of “infinite ammunition” has ceased to be a theoretical idea and has become an operational reality in development. Image | UK Ministry of Defense In Xataka | Spain has built a laser that shields the backbone of its Navy: the A400M is now ready for combat In Xataka | China has achieved something hard to believe: reducing the production of laser weapons and parts for electric cars to one second

lock up China without a single shot

by

Japan is a country made up of more than 6,800 islands, although only about 400 are permanently inhabited. Many of them are small, remote and barely appear on the map, but their location places them in some of the most strategic points of the planet. The invisible barrier. It is evident that international views have been marked by the war in ukraine and now in Iran but, in the meantime, Japan has been raising a kind of “invisible barrier” fortified on a chain of islands off China that completely redefines the balance in the Pacific. It is not a single base or a large visible deployment, but a dispersed network of military positions stretching from southwestern Japan to remote points of the ocean, creating a continuous line of surveillance, detection and potential attack. This strategy turns small islands, many almost uninhabited, into key pieces of a system designed to stop the Chinese advance without the need for open war. From forgotten territory to the first defensive line. It we have counted in recent years. For decades, these islands barely had a military presence, but that has been changing radically in recent times. Places like Yonagunia few kilometers from Taiwan, have gone from having no troops to hosting radars, electronic warfare systems and permanent military unitswhile other positions have been reinforced with new bases and military equipment. There is no doubt, this turn responds to a crystal clear reality: if China tries to act on Taiwan, these islands would be the first objective or the first shield, and Japan is no longer willing to leave them exposed. One of the Type 12 models installed on the islands by Japan Missiles, radars and drones. The real change is in the type of capabilities deployed, which turn this chain of islands into a system offensive and defensive at the same time. As? For example, Japan is deploying long range anti-ship missilessystems capable of hitting hundreds or even thousands of kilometers, along with advanced radars and drones that allow you to detect and track targets in real time. Not only that. Added to this are new weapons such as hypersonic projectiles and cruise missiles that extend the range to the interior of the rival territory, thus marking a clear break with its historical policy of limited defense. Lock up China without firing a shot. Beyond protecting his territory, he recalled this week the wall street journal in an extensive report that the network has a strategic objective much more ambitious: complicate China’s movements at sea in a kind of trap. We are talking about a group of islands that is part of what is known as the “first chain”a set of narrow sea passages that any Chinese fleet must pass through to project power into the Pacific. By deploying weapons at these points, Japan turns each transit at a riskraising the cost of any possible operation and creating a kind of encirclement that limits freedom of maneuver without the need for direct confrontation. The definitive jump. In short, all this reflects a profound change in Japanese strategy, which has gone from passive defense to an active deterrence with the ability to strike from a distance if necessary. The introduction of rocket missiles attests to this. Type 12 long rangethe Tomahawk purchase and integration with US forces, all indicative that Japan no longer just wants to resist an attack, but prevent it threatening key adversary objectives. If you like, we are facing a delicate balance, because reinforces securitybut it also turns these Japanese islands into possible targets, increasing tension in an increasingly unstable region. Image | NARA, Tokoro_ten In Xataka | A single island houses 70% of the US military bases in Japan. There is a compelling reason for them not to leave: China In Xataka | China is sending drones to an island 100 km from Taiwan. The problem is that Japan and the US are filling it with missiles

hunt down Russia’s most ruthless group without a single shot

by

Since the start of the full-scale invasion, the war in Ukraine has been a succession of adaptations forced, where each side has had to learn faster than the other to survive. What began as a bet on speed and political collapse led to a long conflicttechnical and increasingly ruthless, one in which the rules have changed as many times as the weapons on the field. From wear to operational calculation. After almost four years of war, Ukraine has begun to accept that inflicting massive casualties like explained recently A minister, by himself, does not change the logic of the conflict. Russia has shown that it can absorb huge losses without modifying its strategy, while using drones and deep strikes to erode the Ukrainian rear, cut off supplies and psychologically break the troops holding the front. This context has forced a rethinking from kyiv: the battlefield is no longer decided only on the line of contact, but in what happens dozens of kilometers behind, where commanders, drone operators and logistics routes support the Russian advance in slow motion. The war of the rearguard. In open regions like Zaporizhzhia, the difference between resisting and giving ground comes down to the ability to deny the enemy freedom of movement in the rear. Russia has converted medium-range drones in your key weaponattacking Ukrainian roads, convoys and equipment before they even enter combat. Ukraine, on the other hand, has depended for too long of death zones close to the front, betting on annihilating Russian infantry when it is too late to stop the general pressure. More and more Ukrainian commanders assume that, if it is not hit before to the system that fuels the assaults, war becomes a race of attrition impossible to win. The window of opportunity. This change of mentality coincides with a series of blows that have disorganized the Russian army. Disconnection of terminals key communications and internal decisions that have limited its own coordination channels have created a temporary vacuum in enemy command and control. Ukraine has read that weakness not as an occasion to launch local attacks, but as a strategic opportunity rare: for the first time in months, a large Russian formation appears exposed, dependent on fragile lines of communication and struggling to coordinate its defense in depth. And not just any one. The hunt for an army, not adding corpses. The plan that begins to take shape It goes far beyond “kill more or how many more.” The objective now is to encircle, isolate and destroy a specific and hitherto implacable formation of the Russian army, depriving it of reinforcements, ammunition and effective command until it becomes a a burden for Moscow instead of an offensive instrument. Where? In the southeast of Ukraine, where movements indicate that kyiv tries to wrap to the 36th Russian Navybut not through a great armored advance, but with a constant pressure on their flanks, selective attacks on key nodes and a systematic denial of their rear. In other words, it is not a spectacular offensive, because the least important thing is the shots, but rather a prolonged and methodical hunt. A risky but necessary position. There is no doubt, the shift involves risks more than obvious: for example, it demands more intelligence, more medium-range drones and even complex coordination at a time when Ukraine remains very limited by resources and irregular external support. But it also reflects a harsh and realistic conclusion: as long as Russia can rotate units and replenish men, the casualty accounting does not decide the war. Only the destruction of formations entire, unable to withdraw or reorganize, may alter the operational balance and, with it, Ukraine’s position both on the front and in any future negotiations. In that sense, what is underway is not just another offensive, but an attempt to change the rules of the game on the ground. Image | RawPixel In Xataka | An unprecedented experiment is happening in Ukraine: bombs have turned dogs into other animals In Xataka | Europe has been wondering for years “what Russia will do when the war in Ukraine is over.” The answers are not optimistic

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.