50 Insane Submarine Facts That WIll Shock You


The US Navy’s submarine force is known as
the Silent Service- quiet, deadly, and utterly secretive, they represent everything that
makes these weapons of war the most feared by sailors on the high seas. With nations around the world fielding submarines
ranging in size from half of that of an aircraft carrier to barely the length of a school bus,
these undersea terrors are as versatile as they are deadly. Hello and welcome to another episode of The
Infographics Show- today we’re taking a look at 50 incredible facts about the history,
development, and deployment of submarines. 50. L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, served
in the US Navy during World War II and was briefly made commander of the small submarine
chaser USS PC-815, during which he claimed to have sunk two Japanese submarines off the
coast of Oregon- though a subsequent investigation concluded there was no evidence of any subs
in the area. One month later he was relieved of duty for
shelling Mexican territory and supervisors recommended he be assigned “duty on a large
vessel where he can be properly supervised.” 49. In WWII public weather reports were heavily
censored to prevent enemy submarines lurking below the waves from learning about local
conditions. A football game in Chicago was covered in
fog so thick that the radio announcer couldn’t see the field, but he was commended for never
once using the word fog or mentioning the weather. 48. In April 1968 a Soviet strategic ballistic
missile submarine, the K-129, sunk in the North Pacific ocean, prompting a massive search
by the Soviets. Clued in that the Soviets were likely missing
a sub, the US reviewed recordings from their extensive underwater hydrophone network and
located the location of the sub’s implosion within days. 47. After weeks of a fruitless Soviet search for
their missing submarine, the US dispatched their own submarine, the USS Halibut, to the
wreck site during the classified Operation Sand Dollar. Using deep submergence search equipment, the
Halibut spent several weeks taking over 20,000 closeup photos of the wreck of K-129. 46. Wanting to recover the Soviet wreck in order
to pilfer its secrets, the CIA enlisted the aid of American billionaire and known eccentric,
Howard Hughes, who acted as a front for the construction and deployment of a specially
built ship which would lower a claw to the sea floor and lift the destroyed sub to the
surface. 45. Under the pretense of mining manganese nodules
from the ocean floor, the Glomar Explorer then set off to the location of the wreck
and succeeded in lifting up a portion of the forward hull, recovering two nuclear torpedoes,
sonar equipment, code books, and the bodies of six Soviet sailors. 44. The CIA considers the recovery of Soviet submarine
K-129 one of its greatest Cold War successes, and the bodies of the six Soviet submariners
were given a burial at sea with full military honors by American seamen. Video of the burial ceremony was given to
the Russian government in 1992 as a diplomatic gesture. 43. The only sinking of a submarine by another
submarine while submerged occurred on February 9th, 1945, when the Royal Navy submarine HMS
Venturer scored a direct hit on the U-boat U-864 off the coast of Norway. 42. In total, 9 nuclear submarines have been sunk
around the world, and most remain on the bottom of the ocean floor with their nuclear weapons
and reactors intact. 41. The Soviet nuclear submarine K-429 actually
sank twice- once at sea from flooding during a test dive, and then after being raised,
sinking two years later after flooding while moored. Raised once more, this unlucky sub was finally
decommissioned two years later- no doubt to the great relief of her crew. 40. Only two submarine accidents have ever exceeded
100 onboard deaths- the Sinking of the USS Thresher in 1963 and Russia’s K-141 Kursk
in 2000. 39. The sinking of the USS Thresher was the greatest
loss of life from a submarine accident ever. After a pipe joint failed, water burst into
the sub and shorted out electrical systems leading to a loss of power. When the ballast tanks were blown to resurface
manually, ice plugged the valves and prevented the sub from rising, causing the Thresher
to implode at a depth of about 1,300 to 2,000 feet (400-610 meters). 38. Second to the sinking of the Thresher, the
sinking of the Russian Navy’s Kursk killed 118 sailors. Faulty weldings and poor workmanship led to
a leak of one of her practice torpedo’s hydrogen peroxide fuel, which caused an explosion equivalent
to 220-550 pounds (100-250 kilograms) of TNT. After settling at the bottom a second explosion
equivalent to 3-7 tons of TNT killed all but 23 of the remaining crew. The 23 survivors later died when their chemical
oxygen generator caused a flash fire which consumed the remaining oxygen in the compartment
they were sheltering in. 37. In May 2012 a dock worker wanting to “get
out of work early”, started a fire aboard the moored USS Miami which consumed the forward
section of the sub. The worker was sentenced to 17 years in prison
and fined $400 million dollars- which we’re sure he promptly paid off. 36. During the Cold War Finland developed two
advanced submarines in cooperation with the Soviet Union. Fearful of advanced submarine technology making
its way into Soviet hands, the US secretly threatened Finland with severe economic sanctions
if it continued its partnership, which Finland promptly terminated. 35. Sound travels very easily through water, so
submarines rely primarily on sonar to locate their prey. Experienced sonar operators are extremely
valuable to any navy, and have learned to identify different classes of ships by the
sound their engines and propellers make. 34. Computers are even better at identifying ships
by the sounds they make then humans though, and the most advanced sonar systems can even
identify individual vessels by the unique sounds they make due to their specific construction,
variations in materials, and tiny flaws or imperfections in their engines or propellers. 33. In order to not give themselves away, submarines
rarely engage their own sonar, and instead sit quietly for hours or even days listening
to the sound of the ocean around them until an enemy gives themselves away by turning
on their own sonar or by the sound of their engines and propellers. 32. When actively looking for an enemy submarine
though, LFA sonar is the loudest man-made noise, reaching over 200 decibels. 31. The British HMS Artful is one of the greatest
endurance submarines in the world, and can stay underwater for 25 years at a time- its
onboard systems automatically produce oxygen and drinking water from sea water. 30. In case of global nuclear war, one of the
ways the British nuclear submarine fleet checks to see if the British government is still
functioning is to see whether BBC Radio 4 is broadcasting or not. 29. During the 1960s, afraid that Soviet subs
could sever undersea communications cables which kept the US in contact with its overseas
forces, the US deployed a ring of 480 million tiny copper antennas the length of a stamp
and twice the width of a human hair into space around the earth. The antennas would help bounce radio signals
around the world and thus ensure communications, but were ultimately made obsolete by the creation
of the telecommunications satellite. 28. Each British nuclear ballistic submarine contains
a sealed and unopened Letter of Last Resort from the current Prime Minister housed in
a nested safe. The letters are handwritten instructions from
the Prime Minister which the captain of each sub is instructed to open only if the British
government has been wiped out. The letters are destroyed after each new Prime
Minister takes office and replaced with a new one- only the British PM knows the content
of the letters, but it is thought that they include commands for a captain to A) retaliate
with nuclear weapons, B) not to retaliate, C) use his or her own judgement,
or D) place the submarine under command of the US or Australia. 27. Submarines are the stealthiest ships in the
sea- so stealthy in fact that in 2009 two British and French nuclear submarines collided
with one another because they couldn’t detect each other. 26. After the end of World War I, a german submarine
washed up onto a beach in Hastings, England. 25. On February 23rd, 1942, the Japanese submarine
I-17 surfaced near Santa Barbara, California, and attempted to shell an aviation fuel facility
with its deck gun. Doing little to no damage, the shelling helped
prompt the internment of Japanese-Americans for fear of enemy collaborators. 24. In 1998 a North Korean midget sub and her
crew were lost when they became entangled in a South Korean fishing net. When fishermen notified the South Korean authorities,
a South Korean ship secured the stranded submarine and began to tow it to port- only for the
ship to be scuttled by the crewmen sealed inside who then committed suicide. 23. Half of the United States entire nuclear arsenal
is stored aboard 14 ballistic missile submarines. 22. The third leg of the ‘Nuclear Triad’ after
ICBMs and nuclear-capable bombers, submarines are the third element of modern nuclear deterrence. Because of their stealthiness and ability
to hide close to enemy shores, submarine-launched nuclear missiles are the most survivable element
of the nuclear triad. 21. Each of the US’s 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile
submarines carries up to 20 nuclear missiles tipped with 8 100-kiloton nuclear warheads. 20. An Ohio-class’s Trident nuclear attack missile
can independently target each of its 8 warheads, striking 8 targets per missile. All together a single Ohio-class submarine
can destroy 160 cities or military bases. 19. The maximum operating length for an Ohio-class
submarine is classified, and officially annotated only as “Limited only by onboard food supplies”. 18. The largest submarine ever built was the Soviet
Union’s Akula class nuclear ballistic missile submarine, with a length of 372 feet (113
meters), a beam of 45 feet (13.6 meters), and weighing up to 13,800 tons. 17. The Akula class is one of the only submarines
ever built with surface-to-air missiles as part of its weapons package. 16. The Indian navy currently leases one Russian
Akula II submarine- the Nerpa, under a lease program with an option-to-buy at end of lease. 15. In August 2009 two Akula-class submarines
operated off the East coast of the United States, marking the first known Russian submarine
deployment to the western Atlantic since the end of the Cold War. 14. In August 2012 it was discovered that a Russian
Akula-class submarine had operated in the Gulf of Mexico undetected for over a month,
sparking controversy within American military and political circles. 13. One American or Russian nuclear ballistic
missile submarine has enough firepower on board to make it the sixth most powerful nuclear
power in the world. 12. Unlike their ballistic missile cousins, attack
submarines are also known as hunter-killer submarines and specialize in anti-submarine
warfare and targeting surface ships. Some even have cruise missile capabilities
to strike land targets. 11. The first nuclear-powered submarine was the
USS Nautilus, deployed in 1955. Three years later the Soviets followed suit
with their Project 627 “Kit”-class submarine. 10. On October 1981 a Soviet Whisky class submarine
ran aground on the south coast of Sweden, prompting an incident known as ‘Whiskey on
the rocks’. 9. Near the end of World War II, a German sailor’s
inability to properly use the toilet led to the sinking of submarine U-1206 and the capture
of her crew. 8. On Friday the 3rd, 1986 Soviet submarine K-219
suffered a catastrophic explosion in one of its missile tubes. As the captain struggled to save the ship,
the nuclear reactor which should have automatically shut down failed to do so. 20 year old Sergei Preminin volunteered to
enter the reactor room and shut down the reactor manually, which he did. However, water pressure difference between
his sealed compartment and the rest of the ship prevented the crew from opening the door
and Preminin asphyxiated inside the sealed compartment. He was posthumously awarded the Order of the
Red Star for his bravery. 7. After the sinking of the K-219, a Soviet research
ship located the wreck and discovered that its entire complement of nuclear weapons was
missing. To this day their location is unknown. 6. During the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, American
ships located a Soviet submarine near the coast of Cuba and dropped signaling depth
charges meant to force the submarine to surface. Running too deep for radio communication and
thinking that war may have already broken out above them, the three senior officers
aboard voted to authorize launch of the sub’s nuclear weapons in accordance with operating
instructions. One officer, Vasili Arkhipov, was the single
vote that prevented the unanimous decision required, and thus saved the entire world
from a nuclear armageddon. 5. On January 25th, 1995, a team of US and Norwegian
scientists launched a four-stage sounding rocket off the northwestern coast of Norway. Inadvertently following an air corridor which
American ICBMs would use enroute to Moscow, the rocket appeared on radar as a US Navy
submarine-launched Trident missile. Fearing a high altitude nuclear attack meant
to cripple Russian radar in preparation of a full nuclear strike, Russia’s nuclear forces
went on full alert and the Russian nuclear football was brought to Russian President
Boris Yeltsin who had to decide whether to immediately launch a retaliatory nuclear strike
against the United States or not. Thankfully for us, he did not. 4. Per US Navy tradition, no US submarine is
ever considered lost if it fails to return- it and its crew are considered to still be
on patrol. 3. During World War II, two New Zealand trawlers
came across a Japanese submarine that outweighed them by a thousand tons. Refusing to back down, the two fishing vessels
repeatedly rammed the much larger submarine until they beached it, allowing the US to
capture it and vital Japanese code books. 2. The US Navy operates a secretive submarine
base in a remote lake in northern Idaho where it develops stealth submarine technology far
from prying eyes. It is believed that an underground waterway
to the ocean allows it to secretly deploy submarines straight to the Pacific. 1. British submarines fly the Jolly Rogers to
honor submarine tradition. Know of any other amazing submarine facts? Let us know in the comments. Also, be sure to check out our other video
50 Surprising Facts About Aircraft Carriers? Thanks for watching, and as always, please
don’t forget to like, share and subscribe.

Third World vs First World Countries – What’s The Difference?


According to the United Nations, it no longer
judges a country by a particular stage that it is at in its development. Nonetheless, countries are ranked higher in
terms of the comforts and opportunities afforded to its citizens. We now call this the Human Development Index. Back in the day, we would judge a country
by its stage of industrialization, and the first developed country in this sense was
the UK. Belgium followed, then Germany, then the USA,
and then France and other western European nations. If we look at today’s Human Development
Index, the top ten countries in order are: Norway, Australia, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark,
Singapore, the Netherlands, Ireland, Iceland, Canada, and 10th, believe it or not, is the
USA. The UK, which was once in first place, now
stands in 16th place. Today we’ll look at why, in this episode
of the Infographics Show, 3rd World vs 1st World Countries – What’s The Difference? Don’t forget to subscribe and click the
bell button so that you can be part of our Notification Squad. First of all, many people think we should
stop using these terms of first and third world. The terms are seen as insulting and vague,
and while some nations might not be economic powerhouses, what’s to say the citizens
don’t live a happy and safe life, even without a Big Mac and fries? If we go back some years to 1952, a French
demographer Alfred Sauvy wrote about “Three worlds, one planet.” It is he who is said to have coined the term. By first world, he meant the USA, Japan, South
Korea and Western Europe. By second world, he meant the Soviet Union,
China, Cuba and communist allies. At the bottom, in the third world, he meant
all the rest, societies that were mostly agrarian and poor. One of the reasons the term is decried is
because it was so vague. There wasn’t really much analysis, and so
in spite of northern Brits living in industrial slums and working in inhumane conditions as
George Orwell wrote in ‘The Road to Wigan Pier’, because of Britain’s relative wealth,
it was deemed first world. In fact, these days a professor at Harvard
Medical School has used the term ‘Fourth World’, which includes the USA. This means a country of great wealth where
some parts of society live on the fringes, jobless, often drug-addicted, with no healthcare
and not so many opportunities to change things around. They are living in a first world with third
world standards. So, this is a rather confusing question we
have posed. Do we use the term developing? We can look at what has happened over many
parts of Asia in the last twenty years. While parts of China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia,
and Thailand still have pervasive abject poverty, there is a lot more money. It isn’t exactly getting to everyone, though,
and one might ask if farming rice in China was any worse than making iPhone components
for hours on end in a factory in a polluted city. But with this new money, infrastructure has
improved, and so too has healthcare and education. We could say these countries are verily developing. But why is Norway the most developed? Is it still not developing? Does developed mean stasis? Not really, all countries are still developing,
but others could be said to be going through major changes. The U.S. Department of State explains why
Norway is so developed: “Per capita GDP is among the highest in the world,” we are
told, due to thriving industries in this nation of just 5.2 million people. Just take into account that Delhi has 18.6
million people. You only need to walk around Delhi to see
poverty all around you, you don’t have to go looking for it. India is developing due to its fairly amazing
economic growth, but still, it was reported in 2014 that 58% of the Indian population
were living on less than $3.10 per day. India puts the poverty line at $1.90 a day. This may be enough not to starve to death,
but we can imagine that those people living on that amount don’t have the freedom and
opportunities that Norway’s less well-to-do people have. In fact, in Norway, the average income is
more than $35,000 a year. Only 3 percent of the population work very
long hours, and all Norwegians, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development, can expect good, “environment quality, jobs and earnings, income and wealth,
education and skills, housing, work-life balance, civic engagement, social connections, and
health status.” The same definitely cannot be said of any
developing nation. Nonetheless, anyone in India will tell you
about great transformations, more job opportunities, an easing of poverty, and how far the country
has come in terms of developing technology. Norway is top of the Human Development Index,
so we could say this is the first of the first world countries, even though we don’t use
that term anymore. The top 51 nations fall in the ‘High’
Human Development bracket. Out of 188 countries, India comes in at 131st. Indeed, India’s super rich wealth and massive
growth has yet to trickle down to many of the masses. The HDI has three main categories: Environmental
sustainability, economic sustainability and social sustainability. Right at the bottom of the HDI is the Central
African Republic. Again, while we don’t use the term third
world anymore, you could say that this might be the bottom of the list in so far as we
have a term for not being developed. Why is that? For starters, life expectancy there is only
52, or thereabouts. It is tied with Angola, and only better than
one country, which is Sierra Leone. People there can expect to live to 50.1. By comparison, Norwegians on average can expect
to live about 30 years longer. In India, the life expectancy is 68, somewhere
in the middle. The 4.6 million people living in the Central
African Republic have faced extreme poverty, war, ethnic and religious cleansing, and political
violence. It’s said to be the worst place in the world
to be young, and even if you get a job, the average wage per year is said to be $400,
although this might need updating. Half of the population is illiterate, and
if you go to school you might not do more than 4 or 5 years. It has one of the highest maternal mortality
rates in the world, and about a quarter of the women have undergone genital mutilation. If that isn’t bad enough, human rights hardly
exist. Complain, and you might find yourself being
arrested summarily and sent to a terrible jail. Corruption is rife, and there is not much
anyone can do. The country has a history of labor rights
violations as well as child labor. Children and women regularly face violence
after being accused of being witches. One travel blogger talked of his experience
in the capital of Bangui, saying it was “a mess that is always teetering on the edge
of violence.” We are of course mentioning the very worse
things, and no doubt a lot of people live a happy life there. We just want to outline a kind of first, second
and third comparison. That’s why we have picked these three nations. We could also look at the country of Botswana,
which comes in 108th place. This is quite low, but if you’ve read Malcom
Gladwell’s book, ‘Outliers’, you’ll know it’s home to possibly some of the happiest,
laidback, self-sufficient people in the world. Or was, until recent times. According to Gladwell, they have a two hour
work day on average, and play around most of the time. They don’t need iPhones or dinner sets made
by Hermes. They are the last Hunter/Gatherer tribe called
the ǃKung Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert. These wanderers also moved through Angola
(which is placed 150th on the HDI). Unfortunately, what they hunt and gather is
being destroyed by development. Anthropologists say they get over conflicts
in peaceful ways and generally are a happy lot. They provide for their kids with devotion,
and remain mostly monogamous. Wealth is shared with everyone. In more recent years, that has changed as
some were forced to settle in one place, and that’s when the problems arose. As soon as they got doors, they started shutting
them and sharing less. They are also very much third world by western
standards. So, are they any worse off than an overworked,
overweight, diabetes and hypertension suffering rich first world man that takes pills to sleep
and often drinks to oblivion? Let us know in the comments! Also, be sure to check out our other video
called What Can You Buy with a Million Dollars?! Thanks for watching, and, as always, don’t
forget to like, share, and subscribe. See you next time!

454 Days: Understanding America’s Ridiculous Political Campaigns


Good morning, Hank, it’s Tuesday, August 10th,
2015, which means that the next US presidential election is just 454 days away. Hank, somewhere
in the US, later tonight, an egg will be fertilized, and that single cell will grow into two and
then four and then much later, a baby will be born, an actual human being will be thrust
into the world for the first time, and it will cry, presumably over the state of American
political discourse. Hank, that baby, which has not technically been conceived yet, will
be six months old before we elect a president! It will be laughing at its own farts by the
time we actually vote. So, Hank, campaign cycles are getting longer
around the world, but like, in the UK, people don’t start paying serious, proper attention
to the election until five weeks before it happens, when the Queen dissolved parliament.
In Canada, the 2015 campaign period is 78 days, among the longest in Canadian history,
and not coincidentally, also the most expensive. Ahh, but what I wouldn’t give for 78 days.
Hank, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Australia, none of these places have campaign
cycles lasting longer than 100 days. Quick primer for non-Americans, in the US, most
states hold so-called “primary” elections five to ten months before the proper election.
In these primaries, Republican and Democratic voters choose who they want to be their party’s
candidate for president, and then those people face each other in the general election. In
the end, the whole process takes about 23 times longer than it does in the UK, and also
costs 40 times more, so that’s nice. How did this happen? Well, as with most things
in American history, it used to be much worse. For most of American history, the president
wasn’t really elected democratically. For one thing, most people couldn’t vote, because
most people were either women or not white. But even most white males had no say in their
party’s presidential candidates, because those candidates were chosen either by Congress
or by powerful members of the party. But then, more people could vote and primaries started
to gain traction and in January of 1960, John F. Kennedy made history by declaring his candidacy
very early, almost a full year before the election, and there’s no way Kennedy could
have become president under the old system, he was too…how do I put this delicately?
Catholic. But actual voters liked him more than the Democratic party establishment did,
so he became a nominee and eventually the President. And that’s the argument for a long campaign
cycle, it allows underdogs to build momentum and in doing so, makes the whole process more
democratic. But the length of presidential campaigns has doubled since Kennedy, and costs
have skyrocketed and I struggle to see what we get for all that time and money. There
aren’t a lot of serious policy discussions at this point, actual clowns are being treated
as serious contenders for the presidency, and instead of focusing on governing, people
have to focus entirely on campaigning. I mean, we’re in the middle of a 22 month, multi-billion
dollar presidential campaign, but we haven’t had a long-term bill to fund highways in four
years. So yeah, I’m not paying attention to this
so-called presidential campaign at the moment. Now, I’m not criticizing those who do choose
to care about the US presidential campaign now, there’s lots of great organizing and
activism going on around the candidates, but focus is elsewhere at the moment. It’s on
my kids and this great book that I just read and the elections in Haiti two days ago that
finally occurred after three years of delays. Here’s my pledge. I will begin caring about
the US presidential election 100 days before the May 3rd primary here in Indiana. So if
on January 23rd, 2016, Donald Trump is still a candidate for president of the United States,
I will think about Donald Trump for the first time in my life, and I will seek to understand
his strengths and weaknesses as a presidential candidate. Until then, I will remain blissfully
ignorant. Hank, I will see you on Friday.

US Healthcare System Explained


If you look at lists regarding which countries have the best healthcare and landed in rather unsual places seems rather strange I know but hear me out For some reason places turned a dark red and Japan followed cause Japan and another hand fell on the Islands Big list of random facts with a rather odd close up and closer and closer we can see it better now and the useless facts go away

Top 20 Happiest Countries To Live In The World


How to measure happiness? Greek philosopher Aristotle talked about two
kinds of happiness: hedonic, meaning pleasure gained from experiences, that kind of instant
gratification. Then there’s eudaimonic happiness, which
is more related to sustained happiness, self-realization, and a sense of well-being. If you are happy and you know it…you might
be wrong. There’s this thing called the “pleasure
paradox”, which is you thinking certain things make you happy when they don’t. Then there’s “synthetic happiness,”
which is our brains convincing us we are happy when we are not, just because reality would
hurt too much. Despite the difficulties of measuring the
happiness of one-person, entire countries are judged for their happiness. There’s even a World Map of Happiness. Today, we’ll look at the leaders of the
world in happiness, in this episode of the Infographics Show, Top 20 Happiest Countries
in The World. The World Happiness Report takes 156 countries
and measures their happiness by six variables: income and what you can do with it; life expectancy;
social support & safety nets; personal freedoms; trust, in terms of how you trust the government
or police, laws, or even matters related to business, basically how people perceive corruption;
and lastly, generosity, as in charity and how much is shared or given away. Around 2,000 to 3,000 people in every country
are asked to answer questions based on these variables. At the bottom of this year’s list were Yemen,
Tanzania, South Sudan, Central African Republic, and Burundi, so people in those countries
likely have a hard time for the most part. But who is in the top 20? 20. United Arab Emirates
This is the happiest country in the Arab world. Behind is Qatar at 32, Saudi Arabia at 33,
Bahrain at 43, and Kuwait at 45. Sometimes said to be a dangerous part of the
world, UAE goes against that grain. One expat wrote about living there, “Everything
is there for you with full convenience, accessibility, and safety, what more could one ask for?” It’s said to be a melting pot of nationalities
and ethnicities, but has little discrimination. But there are some people who do suffer, and
human rights organizations say these are the many exploited workers who labor there. 19. The United Kingdom
The country that still, to some extent, has a class system, is high up in terms of happiness. Those Brits might like to complain about the
terrible weather, the price of late trains, Brexit, lizard queens, and football teams
that never win, but they are actually happy according to this report. They get free healthcare if they are willing
to wait for it, with their marvelous (some say getting less marvelous) national health
scheme. No job, no problem, you can get money from
the government (people in many countries don’t have welfare). And when things get too bad for those Brits,
there’s always a pub down the street full of merry men and women and a cheap flight
to the Costa del somewhere. 18. United States of America
What did Brit sage and TV star Stephen Fry say about America, after making a series about
the country? He said people were just very bloody positive
compared to the downcast Brits. Ok, some people have it tough…there’s
discrimination, racism, healthcare bills that can ruin your life, rampant crime, and almost
entire towns hooked on Oxys and Xanax, but the American Dream is alive and well in some
people’s hearts. America still is a land of opportunity. While 18th place isn’t bad, some American
media said the ranking was depressing because it was quite a slide from recent years. The reason for the slide? Physical and mental health apparently; some
Americans eat too much as we know, and an obesity crisis has led to widespread bad health. Pizza for school lunch might make some kids
happy, but things tend to get worse in adulthood. There’s also the aforementioned substance
abuse, and Big Pharma being hard at work curing all kinds of mental strife. America has the world at its feet, great opportunities
for hard workers, safety nets in place, a decent standard of education, but people need
to stop abusing themselves and do the Buddhist thing and be moderate. 17. Luxembourg
The average Luxembourger is quite happy. Like America, the Grand Duchy fell a few places
this year. This is a tiny yet expensive country, that
is said to be home to more expats than any other European country. There are three languages: French, German,
and Lëtzebuergesch (Luxembourgish) spoken by just over half a million people. Yes, that’s more like a city-size. 98 percent of the population have free healthcare
and its said to be one of the best in the world. Borgen writes that most people live comfortably
here, although a few people do live in relative poverty. But the average per capita wage is $46,591
so it can’t be too bad. There’s hardly any crime, either. 16. Belgium
Maybe it’s all the great beer and chocolate, but it’s more than that that makes Belgium
a happy country. Borgen says that poverty rates are low, but
6 percent of the country’s population do live with “severe material deprivation”,
meaning they don’t have much at all. Social support and GDP were the main factors
for the high ranking, with no mention at all about chocolate. 15. Germany
Cost of living in Germany is reasonable, and with a high GDP and strong industry, there
is much room to do well in Germany. One American writer on Quora who had lived
in Germany praised the country, saying, “Infrastructure is excellent as is anything that has to do
with technology. You feel the high-tech everywhere you go. Both the cities and countryside makes you
feel like you are living on a very advanced planet.” Ok, so it’s organized to a degree that is
annoying at times, as some say, overly bureaucratic, but if you work hard here you will likely
have many opportunities. On the downside, the American expat said Germans
are way too afraid of all kinds of authority, making life oppressive at times. 14. Ireland
Many English people hop over to Ireland and say, “Oh, what a beautiful country…and
the people are so friendly.” It’s said the Irish like having a good time,
enjoying what they call the Craic (pronounced crack). Ok, so there were troubles not long ago, and
to some, that might make Ireland look rather grim, but nowadays, according to OECD, the
economy is good, average earnings are good, and it seems things in Ireland, in almost
all categories, are just getting better. One other thing that is said to be good in
Ireland is community spirit and the fact that people can rely on that community. It’s also a bonus if you travel to America,
‘cos everyone there seems to love a real Irish person. 13. Costa Rica
This is some accomplishment by Costa Rica, given that it’s the only country in this
part of the world to make the list. We don’t just mean Central America, but
South America, too. What’s so good about the country? The Huffington Post writes about this favorite
tourist and expat haunt, saying the life is just good, good and good here. Life expectancy is high, state healthcare
is said to be great, and the economy is strong at the moment. It’s also said that the country has a very
fair and democratic government, with not much corruption compared to nearby countries. According to the US government, crime is pretty
low too, especially for this region of the world. There were 603 homicides in 2017, which aint
bad really- and that was a record high. 12. Austria
This country has few poor people. It ranks high in income standards, housing
standards, health, well-being, crime, or lack thereof, environmental quality, and education. There’s hardly any crime, and you have great
scenery all over the place. What’s more, Austria is a pretty place to
live. In some surveys, Vienna was ranked the best
place to live in the world. 11. Israel
If you think that because of ongoing conflicts, Israel is a crappy place to live, you are
wrong. The average income of most people is good,
and life expectancy is very high. Although, OECD says education and skills,
housing standards, environmental quality, how much you work, and your social connections
are all below average. People work too much we are told, but what
you get for your money is not too bad. 10. Australia
Ever watched the TV shows “Neighbors” or “Home and Away”? If you had, you might think living here was
a walk in the park. It seems you don’t work too much, and spend
half your life at the beach, or at least in those shows anyway. If you’ve ever listened to Nick Cave, the
Australian musician, you might have a different opinion. It’s expensive, but wages are good. The economy is great, the sun shines a lot,
and the crime rate isn’t that high. In fact, the country just experienced its
lowest murder rate ever, according to The Guardian. Don’t believe everything you see in those
outback murder movies. 9. Sweden
We bet you knew Sweden would appear on this list. With good wages and a robust economy, Sweden
is doing fine. You pay loads of taxes, but you get a lot
back for that. We like what this person said on Quora, “Swedes
also don’t attempt to ‘keep up with the Joneses.’ Social competitiveness is not part of their
national ethos. This means that they are more content with
what they have, and living their own lives the way they see fit.” That seems like the recipe for a good life
if, indeed, you have all the basic necessities, and most Swedes seem to have those. Another Swede backed that up, saying that
there are few posh areas in the country and few deprived areas, unlike most countries
in the world that have virtually no-go areas and areas for the rich only. 8. New Zealand
New Zealand media wrote in 2015 that the country has “the world’s third-highest material
standard of living.” They might not earn as much as people from
some other countries, but they get a lot for their money. Education is excellent, healthcare is free,
and you’ve got that amazing countryside that you may have seen in the Lord of the
Rings movies. Nonetheless, the Guardian writes that there
are those that get left behind, and poverty is a shameful secret of the country. “Catch a bus or two from Britomart in central
Auckland, and after an hour and a half, you will arrive in the urban slum of South Auckland,”
said the article. 7. Canada
So, what about the Canucks, do they have poverty? Anyone who’s ventured into the meanest streets
of Toronto or Montreal can tell you of course they do. But on the whole, Canada has a good distribution
of wealth, not much crime, not much discrimination, considering it’s so diverse, and good education. If you come from a poor country and visit
parts of Ottawa, you might think you are living in a kind of wonderland. Ok, so some parts of the country seem kinda
dull and downtrodden, but in general, most people agree that Canada is just cool, if
not too cold in parts. 6. Netherlands
Talking about dull, the Netherlands can be a bit grey at times. But OECD says this, “The Netherlands ranks
top in work-life balance and above the average in income and wealth, jobs and earnings, housing,
education and skills, subjective well-being, social connections, environmental quality,
personal safety, civic engagement, and health status.” You could say, in some respects, the Netherlands
is similar to Canada in that many people often have a very liberal attitude. That means a lot in terms of happiness. They eat well, embrace fun, cycle around a
lot, and if you should fall off that bike, they have one of the best healthcare systems
in the world. It’s free of course, but your employer will
take some cash for the mandatory healthcare system. 5. Switzerland
It might be one of the most expensive places to live in the world, but it’s also home
to people who, for the most part, can afford it. “If disposable income is the benchmark for
living standards, then Switzerland is the third best placed country in Europe,” writes
Swiss Info. There is free healthcare, free education,
a stable political climate, and almost no crime. On Quora, someone called the country “heaven
on Earth.” If you can afford it, you’ve also got that
amazing countryside you can wander around. Bergen tells us only one in 13 people live
below the poverty line. 4. Iceland
The home of great musicians such as Bjork and Sigur Ros, but also the home of 86 percent
of people that have a job, if they are at an employable age. Life expectancy is high, at 83. Saying that, we found a source that said Icelanders
are dying to live abroad. Maybe all that fresh air isn’t always a
good thing. BTW, Ireland, also on our list, was number
one for citizens that move abroad. 3. Denmark
Flat, grey Denmark- could it really be all that happy? Well, like its neighbor Sweden, Danish folks
just have a great safety net. It’s hard to be poor there, like, really
poor. But one source says it’s not all about money,
but more the culture, and also the leisure time and family life that people enjoy. There were only 39 murders in 2017; meanwhile
California had 1,930 murders in 2016. 2. Norway
Norway is happy, despite some of those living in the north spending months in darkness. If you’ve taken a trip to this magical country,
you’ll know something else: it’s unbelievably expensive. Still, there’s hardly any poverty; you will
likely live a long time (81.3 is the average), and if you live there as an adult, there is
little chance you’ll be unemployed, and if you have a job, you’ll likely earn enough
to afford the expensive meals for two. There is virtually no poverty here, and we
don’t mean relative poverty, but people in the streets begging or pushing trolleys
down the street. Free healthcare, a great system of education,
a healthy environment, who wouldn’t want to live here? 1. Finland
Ok, so the top of the list has one of the highest suicide rates in the developed world. Go figure. This is one reason we said at the start that
happiness is hard to measure. Is it the lack of sun, or the Sami culture
of men not being able to express their emotions? We don’t know, but Finland enjoys a maverick
educational system where students study less and learn more, great healthcare, a vibrant
economy, and good infrastructure. The Economist tried to explain why Fins are
so happy and the answer was people just have it easy. They trust their government, trust their police,
believe in their teachers, have little discrimination, have equal opportunities, a good spread of
wealth, and hardly any crime. Now, we just need to figure out why so many
Fins are offing themselves. So, do you
live in one of these countries? Does it seem like the life is happy there? Let us know in the comments! Also be sure to check out our other video
called Hardest Languages to Learn. Thanks for watching, and, as always, don’t
forget to like, share, and subscribe. See you next time!

Who Will Be The Next Superpower Nation?


Throughout history, superpowers have risen
and fallen. The Roman Empire – the most dominant power
in the ancient world, tore across Europe and the Middle East in the 2nd century before
eventually losing grip on its territories. Likewise The Mongol Empire led by Genghis
Khan was the world’s largest land empire, yet after divisions separated in the 13th
century, they finally lost their grip. The British Empire expanded through trading
ventures, and by the early twentieth century had become history’s largest empire, covering
a quarter of the world’s surface with a fifth of the world’s population living in
it. After the 2nd world war, The United States
rose as a world superpower with 50% of the world’s GNP followed closely by Russia. Superpowers come and go, but today we’ll
take a look into the future, in this episode of the Infographics show, – Who will be the
Next Superpower Nation? With a strong national identity and a united
sense of ambition, Brazil has sought to emerge as a serious global economic and political
power on the world stage. With enormous natural resources, including
a tenth of the world’s fresh water, the largest remaining rainforest, and a valuable
supply of minerals, Brazil looks set to lead the way when it comes to tackling the inevitable
environmental issues we all face. However, the apparent lack of traditional
hard power in the shape of military resources will undoubtedly prove a hurdle for Brazil
to make a claim for world superpower status using traditional methods of aggressive advancement. The People’s Republic of China is a strong
emerging economic and military superpower, and the term secondary superpower has already
been credited to china by scholars and media alike. China does indeed have the most promising
all-around profile of a potential superpower, with business ventures and investment deals
in South East Asia, Africa, and Latin America, and with a degree of alienation from dominant
international society making it potentially a power to challenge collective world politics. Along with the European Union and the United
States, China is a real contender, particularly with its ballooning domestic economy. Economist Arvind Subramanian argues that China
will direct the world’s financial systems by as early as 2020, and within 20 years author
Lawrence Saez states that the United States will be surpassed by China. Before Brexit, academics pointed fondly towards
the European Union as another potential emerging superpower. With a large population, low inflation rates,
global unpopularity of US foreign policy, a large economy, and a high quality of life,
the EU looked as if it had already perhaps hit the superpower stakes. Although the EU is facing a number of daunting
situations, including Brexit, it is still powered by a solid economic engine with the
largest economy in the world. In fact, the world bank says that EU-Plus
(including Norway and Switzerland) boasts an economy larger than the US and Russia combined. The EU also has more Fortune 500 companies
than the US, India and Russia combined, and some of the most competitive national economies
remain, or at least trade together, within the EU. The Republic of India is also a contender,
with Harvard economists and researchers projecting a 7% annual economic growth, making India
the fastest growing economy in the world in 2017. Despite these strides forward, India still
faces a rigid caste system and rural poverty, corruption, and inequality issues. Politically, India is stable with a democratic
government that has lasted for 60 years. By 2050, India is set to rise by up to twenty
per cent with a young working society. But while India has impressive economic and
population growth, it also has domestic issues such as malnutrition and rural poverty to
tackle before tackling the political world stage. The Russian Federation is often suggested
as a potential superpower candidate, although during the State of Nation address at the
Kremlin in Moscow, president Vladimir Putin denied any Russian aspiration to become the
next superpower. An aging and shrinking population is constricting
Russia’s potential to re-emerge as a superpower once more, despite her impressive military
prowess and aggressive foreign policy. However, some argue that within the next fifty
years, national powers will lose their ability to operate as the superpowers they have been
in the past. The real super powers will be the economic
elite who operate with no fidelity to any nation, race, or religion. Thee economic elite superpowers will operate
globally from a series of outposts positioned strategically across the globe. They will be transient, living at times in
New York, and at others times in Singapore, Hong Kong, London, or Sydney. This theory doesn’t offer a solution to
how, in the advent of a global elite superpower, that apparatus will manage a normal civil
society worldwide. In view of such superpower predictions, it
should be noted that in the 1980s, experts collectively believed that Japan would become
the next superpower, owing to its large GDP and high economic growth. However a few years later in 1991 Japan’s
economy crashed, creating The Lost Years, a long period of economic slump that Japan
has never fully recovered from. So while our predictions might have seemed
logical at the time, the world is a volatile place and superpowers rise and fall as a matter
of opportunity and chance, just as much as they do through meticulous military planning
or strategic economic forecast. So, who do you predict will be the next Superpower
nation? Are there promising countries that we failed
to mention? Let us know in the comments! Also, be sure to check out our other video
called What if the World was One Country?! Thanks for watching, and, as always, don’t
forget to like, share, and subscribe. See you next time!

Understanding the Primaries: Delegates, Democracy, and America’s Nonstop Political Party


Good morning, Hank. It’s Tuesday. and I have strep throat which I rate 0/10 not recommended. so your video about the political situation in Brazil made me think about the political situation here in the United States specifically the tortuously long, Kafka-esque process through which the two major political parties in the United States determine their nominees for President. delving deeply into the whole sorted affair would take like a month so today we’re just going to look at one state: Missouri last week the people of Missouri voted in their presidential primaries and on the Republican side, Donald Trump beat Ted Cruz statewide by about .19 percent And on the democratic side, Hilary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders by a similar margin But what actually matters for becoming your party’s nominee is not how many votes
you get but how many delegates are pledged to you because the nominees are
not actually chosen by voters. They are chosen by delegates at the party’s national
conventions in July. The Republicans are meeting in Cleveland the Democrats in
Philadelphia. On the Republican side there will be 2473 of these delegates voting at the
convention and on the Democratic side there will be 4765-ish. It depends a little bit on if anybody dies. Right, so despite
only winning the statewide primary by point two percent Hilary Clinton
emerged from Missouri with 47 delegates to Bernie Sanders’ 35. In fact, she would have won more delegates
than Sanders even if she lost by .2 percent because the Missouri Democratic
Party has named 13 so-called super delegates who can support whomever they
want at the convention and most of them have endorsed Clinton. Missouri’s
super-delegates include the state’s governor Jay Nixon, Senator Claire
McCaskill, and like other prominent members of the state’s Democratic Party. Then there are the 71 delegates who actually represent Missouri’s Democratic
primary voters. By state party rule, their votes are split proportionately according to
the results, so if Clinton had gotten a hundred percent of the vote, she would have
gotten all 71 delegates, but she just barely beat Sanders, so instead she got
36 delegates to his 35. This year in Missouri there were about 8,800 democratic votes for each of these
71 pledged delegates. Which means that at the party’s convention in Philadelphia Governor Jay
Nixon will have, you know, around 8800 times more power than the
average Democratic voter in Missouri, and not to belabor the obvious or anything,
that’s not a power distribution generally associated with the word
democracy. But wait, there’s more! Over on the Republican side Donald Trump beat Ted Cruz very narrowly statewide, but emerged with 37 delegates to Cruz’s 15.
And John Kasich, who got ten percent of the vote, won no delegates at all. But it
wasn’t all bad news for Kasich, because on the same day in Ohio, he got 47
percent of the Republican vote but all of the state’s 66 delegates.That’s because the
rules of the Republican state party in Ohio dictate that whoever gets the most
votes gets all the delegates, whereas the rules created by the State party in
Missouri dictate that if no one gets 50 percent, the winner gets twelve delegates, and then
five delegates go to the winner of each of Missouri’s eight congressional
districts. Trump won the state and five of the congressional districts ergo 37
delegates. Alright, this is going to get a little complicated: bit of context for
non-Americans: there are 435 congressional districts in the United States. Each of
these districts elects a congressperson every two years who goes to Washington and
fails to pass a budget. Presumably they also do other things but the main thing is to
make sure that we don’t accidentally pass a budget. Each state gets a certain
number of congressional districts based on their population, and after the 2010
census it was determined that a smaller percentage of Americans lived in
Missouri so they lost a congressional district. While fast growing states like Arizona
and Florida gain districts but this losing a district offered the state of
Missouri an opportunity to redraw its congressional boundaries. Back in 2010 there
were six congressional districts represented by Republicans and 3
represented by Democrats. If one of those had to go, the Republicans obviously
wanted it to be a majority Democratic district which is what happened because
1- they control the state legislature and 2 – one of the democratic congress people
helped them because in that process his district became even more democratic. You know, now he’s less likely to lose his job. Today congressional districts in
Missouri are drawn mostly in a way that makes the elections within them extremely
lopsided. Like in 2014 the first congressional district of Missouri voted
73 percent to 21 percent for the Democrat. The third district meanwhile
voted 68 percent to 27 percent for the Republican, et cetera. But per Republican state party rules, no matter which
district you win you get the same five delegates. Like in Missouri’s 1st congressional district
about 34,000 republican votes were cast in the 7th district it was closer to
150,000. So just by virtue of living in the first district instead of the seventh, your
Republican primary vote is five times more powerful. In short Hank, all of this is
extremely complicated and none of it is particularly democratic, at least not in
a straightforward way we usually imagine democracy. Political
parties are weird institutions in the United States, like, they’re simultaneously
public organizations and private clubs. They make their own rules, the rules are
constantly changing, but in many cases the rules are regulated by the states.
And political parties are powerful, but only insofar as their supporters allow
them to have power. Also they don’t really have card-carrying members, but almost
every national elected figure belongs to one of them. Now some of this is a legacy from
a time when the United States was openly suspicious of what we now call voting
rights. I mean, for most of American history, most adults couldn’t vote and
political parties served partly as a check against revolution or radical
change. In fact, the nominating process has become much more democratic over time. Like as
recently as 1968 only 34 percent of Republican delegates were chosen by
primaries, and only 38 percent of Democratic delegates. And for the last 10 election cycles,
in both parties, the person with the most overall primary and caucus support has
also been the eventual nominee. But that may not be the case this year, and it
remains to be seen who will actually wield the power when the party and the
people disagree. Hank, I’ll see you on Friday.

50 Insane Cold War Facts That Will Shock You!


Ok, so before we start this Cold War epic,
we should probably explain to you what the Cold War was. The Americans and Soviets were more or less
buddies during the Second World War, fighting together against the Axis powers. But the U.S. was very concerned about communism
and the despotic Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. To put it bluntly, America feared that the
commies – as it liked to say – would take over the world. For that reason, the U.S. wanted to contain
communist expansionism. But the Soviets were building an arsenal of
arms, including nuclear weapons. Thus, an arms race was on the way. It’s thought Bernard Mannes Baruch, an American
financier and multimillionaire, coined the term Cold War, which basically means a war
without military action. And so, without further ado, welcome to this
episode of the Infographics show, 50 Facts About Cold War You Didn’t Know. Fact #50. So, as we said, it was Bernard Mannes that
coined the term Cold War. He was a rich man and also an advisor to all
U.S. presidents from Woodrow Wilson to Harry S. Truman. He’s famous for saying this: “Let us not
be deceived. We are today in the midst of a Cold War. Our enemies are to be found abroad and at
home. Let us never forget this: Our unrest is the
heart of their success.” 49. It was Winston Churchill who first used the
term, “Iron Curtain” in relation to the Cold War, which basically means the metaphorical
divide between the Soviet bloc and the West. 48. Churchill is often said to be one of the most
mythologized leaders that ever existed. He may have been a great orator during times
of conflict, but he has also been accused of being a bigot, a snob, a racist, and being
not too sympathetic to those who suffered at the hands of the British Empire. Perhaps one of the reasons why he was good
at talking was because he was a big fan of amphetamines. 47. Over on the other side of the iron curtain,
Joseph Stalin was responsible for around 2.9 million deaths. Those deaths, historians say, were related
to Stalin’s oppression, the Gulag, and forced resettlement. But if we include total deaths due to poverty
and famine while Stalin was in power, the number could be as high as 60 million. As far as evil dictators go, Stalin is often
said to take the number two spot behind China’s prolific paranoid practician of violence,
Mao Zedong. Surprisingly, Hitler only gets the bronze
for evilness. 46. Stalin wasn’t really named Stalin. He was born Josef Vissarionovich Djugashvili,
but that doesn’t really have a cool ring to it. He changed his name to Stalin ‘cos it means
Man of Steel. Superman’s currently rolling over in his
grave. 45. The Cold War started under American president
Harry Truman and ended while George Bush Sr. was in power. If you were around in 1989, you might have
read the headline, “Bush and Gorbachev suggest Cold War is coming to an end.” 44. The Soviets drew amazingly detailed maps of
the whole world during the Cold War. In fact, the U.S. and the UK were astounded
by how detailed and accurate they were, so much so that the US State Department uses
them today. Wired wrote in 2015, “University libraries
at places like Stanford, Oxford, and the University of Texas in Austin have drawers stuffed with
Cold War Soviet maps.” 43. In 1956, President Eisenhower signed off on
a resolution that made “In God We Trust” the official American motto. Some people didn’t like this, given America’s
religious diversity, but the president saw it as an important move against Communist
materialism. He also made it a law that the motto should
appear on all American coins and bills, presumably to make sure the American public would not
forget who they trusted the most. 42. “Under God” was added to the American
Pledge of Allegiance for pretty much the exact same reason. 41. Even though the Soviets and the USA were involved
in what was called the “Space Race,” at one point they were thinking about teaming-up
during the Cold War. According to NASA’s website, “Eisenhower
suggested creating a process to secure space for peaceful uses. Khrushchev, however, rejected the offer.” 40. Chinese Communist Party leader, Mao Zedong,
had been treated badly by the Soviets on many occasions. He got his own back, though, when he met Soviet
leader Nikita Khrushchev. Mao loved swimming, and he had learned that
Khrushchev couldn’t swim. On one visit, the latter was met by Mao, who
offered him some bathing shorts. He took Khrushchev to a private swimming pool. According to The Smithsonian, “Khrushchev,
meanwhile, stood uncomfortably in the children’s end of the pool until Mao, with more than
a touch of malice, suggested that he join him in the deeper water.” The embarrassed Soviet leader needed a floatation
device and apparently paddled like a dog. Mao was a happy man. Some years later, Khrushchev said, “It was
Mao’s way of putting himself in an advantageous position.” 39. When Mao visited Moscow in 1949, Stalin pretty
much left him in a hotel and kept feeding him lots of food. Little did Mao know that Soviet scientists
were secretly collecting his poo so that they could analyze it and see what he was made
of. 38. When Mao was 69, he had a 14-year old girlfriend. 37. According to the BBC in 2017, for decades,
the BBC hired MI5 to vet anyone who worked for it. If they were even slightly too left-leaning,
they would soon be made unemployed. The BBC writes that by hiring what they called
subversives, it might lead to a left-leaning government. You must remember that many American and European
intellectuals might not have been keen on Soviet rule, but many were so-called Marxists. 36. In the USA, Joe McCarthy created vast paranoia
regarding Reds Under the Bed and communist infiltration of good ole American society. McCarthy was feared, and his stringent witch
hunts pervaded all areas of society. He didn’t seem to have any scruples either,
but that may have been down to the heroin that he was addicted to. It’s said that America’s first “War
on Drugs” czar, Harry Anslinger, made sure McCarthy got his fix. 35. It’s said one of the most successful spying
operations from the UK and the U.S. was something called Operation Tamarisk. This involved rooting through Soviet trash
to find documents. The thing was, though, sometimes the Soviets
ran out of toilet paper and had to wipe themselves with said documents. According to one writer, Tamarisk was British
jargon for, “sifting through the detritus of military exercises.” 34. MI5 was almost as bad as McCarthy, believing
anyone with slight communist links was a threat to British security. They monitored and spied on left-leaning politicians,
anti-nuclear weapons groups, anti-apartheid groups, members of Amnesty International,
and Civil Liberties organizations. 33. The US planned to detonate a nuclear bomb
on the moon in the 1950s. It was known as Project A119 and Carl Sagan
was on the team. He was hired to study what the effect would
be if you detonated such a bomb in a low gravity vacuum. It was thought that such a thing would boost
American morale and demoralize the Soviets. 32. The Soviets wanted to do the same thing. Their plan was codenamed E-4. Apparently, the E project had certain steps. 1 was to get a spacecraft to the moon. 2 and 3 were to orbit around it, and 4 was
to bomb it. What a world we live in, eh? 31. The CIA used LSD on its own soldiers as mind
control experiments. They did the same to biochemist Frank Olsen,
who nine days later mysteriously jumped to his death from a 13-story New York City hotel. 30. In 1951, there was a mass poisoning in a French
town called Pont-Saint-Esprit. People died, but others suffered from scary
hallucinations and ended up in the madhouse. It was said to be something in the bread. There are many theories about what happened,
and one is that the CIA spiked the bread with massive amounts of LSD as part of its MKNAOMI
chemical warfare program. Writing about the incident of what became
known as the “cursed bread,” the Telegraph newspaper said, “One man tried to drown
himself, screaming that his belly was being eaten by snakes. An 11-year-old tried to strangle his grandmother. Another man shouted: ‘I am a plane’ before
jumping out of a second-floor window, breaking his legs.” CIA 1 France 0. 29. The United States Air Force in the 50s used
drugged bears to test ejector seats in powerful planes. Apparently, Himalayan and American black bears
were a good size. No bears died, but some broke bones. You can watch it on YouTube. 28. And Canada was just as bad. It forced some of its Inuit population to
relocate further north, just so it could show the Soviets it had sovereignty there. 27. It’s actually sometimes said that the Cold
War started in Canada. That’s because a soviet cipher clerk named
Igor Sergeyevich Gouzenko defected there just after WWII and handed over 109 documents relating
to Soviet espionage and future plans. Some of those plans of course were to build
massive bombs. 26. According to the BBC, during the Cold War,
Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and US President John F Kennedy wrote each other lots of letters. They even sent each other gifts. One such gift was given to Kennedy’s daughter. It was a dog called Pushinka, who was the
offspring of one of the Soviet space dogs. It in turn had puppies which JFK called the
pupniks. 25. If you check out recently released secret
files from the National Archive, there’s a conversation with the CIA director in 1975
and an attorney. The attorney asks, “Is there any information
involved with the assassination of President Kennedy which in any way shows that Lee Harvey
Oswald was in some way a CIA agent. . .” But mysteriously, that’s where the
document ends. 24. The term ‘Third World’ was not related
to poverty or standards of living when it was first used, but it meant any countries
not in NATO. 23. The British satirical puppet show “Spitting
Image” showed Soviet Leader Mikhail Gorbachev with what looked like a hammer and sickle
painted on his forehead. It’s actually a port-wine stain, a discoloration
of the skin. 22. If you look at secret files, you can see what
Gorbachev thought about 3,000 Chinese being killed at Tiananmen Square in Beijing in 1989. In a meeting, he discussed what would happen
if his own government met with resistance. “We must be realists. They have to defend themselves, and so do
we. 3,000 people, so what?” he said. 21. Later in life, Gorbachev teamed-up with former
U.S. President Bill Clinton to make a children’s music CD. They won a Grammy for their efforts. 20. During the Cold War, the Americans devised
a cunning plan. They would portray President Nixon as crazy,
so crazy he might press that red button at any time and start a nuclear war. They called this “The Madman Theory.” The theory was that if they could make someone
look so volatile, then other countries wouldn’t provoke the U.S. Some media now say Donald Trump uses the madman
theory, or at least it looks like that. 19. The USA spent 20 million dollars on a cat…We
should probably just leave you to think about that…But we won’t. Called the acoustic kitty, this cat was designed
to spy on Soviets, as it had a listening device implanted in its ear canal. On its first mission to spy on two gents in
a Soviet Compound in the US, it got hit by a taxi and died. Some people refute this and say the cat was
just useless. Either way it’s amusing if you don’t pay
taxes in the U.S. Declassified documents show how the CIA resigned themselves to failure,
stating that spying cats were just not practical. 18. The CIA didn’t stop at felines. They also trained ravens, pigeons, and goats. In fact, as was revealed years later, animal
training for spying purposes was a huge project at Langley. 17. In 2017, the New York Times wrote a story
about a man who had just died at 77. His name was Stanislav Petrov and it was a
decision he made that saved us from an all out nuclear war. In 1983, his missile early warning system
informed him that the U.S. had launched 5 Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missiles
at Russia. Protocol was an immediate retaliatory strike,
but the man just couldn’t believe it was real. And it wasn’t, the machine was malfunctioning. “Twenty-three minutes later, I realized
that nothing had happened. If there had been a real strike, then I would
already know about it. It was such a relief,” he told the press. 16. This is the first line of an article in The
Guardian, “If you were born before October 27th, 1962, Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov
saved your life.” At the height of the cold war, during the
Cuban missile crisis, the Soviets were about to strike with nuclear weapons. They believed America was about to strike
a submarine with a nuclear weapon and so the giant USS Randolph became the target for a
ten kiloton nuclear torpedo. You need three high-ranking officers to launch,
and Arkhipov said no. It turned out the U.S. wasn’t thinking about
its own launch. Phew. 15. LA Times headline, July 25th, 1986: “U.S.
and Soviets May Stage Joint Mars Mission.” Apparently, Reagan changed his mind, which
must have been a bummer for the then child, Elon Musk. 14. in 1983 Korean Airlines Flight 007 was
on its way from New York to Seoul. It didn’t get there because the Soviets
shot it down, killing all 269 passengers and crew. It was thought to have been a spy plane, but
it was just a regular old 747 carrying mostly vacation-goers. This created a lot of anti-Soviet sentiment
around the world. 13. The reason we first got the Global Positioning
System (or GPS) was because of that plane getting hit. After the event, President Reagan made sure
that GPS became a technology available to anyone in the world. Prior to that, only the military had it. 12. In the 60s in the USA, planes would fly around
all the time carrying nuclear bombs. This was a ‘just-in-case’ scenario. 5 of these planes with the bombs on board
crashed. That included a B-52 that crashed in North
Carolina in 1961, and it was carrying two 3–4-megaton Mark 39 nuclear bombs. Two people died, but you won’t have heard
about it. This was classified information. And little did North Carolina residents know,
that the bombs almost detonated…Do you think they would have blamed Russia? 11. As is often the case, the Russian threat was
overblown. While it was reported that Russia had scores
of intercontinental ballistic missiles in the 50s and 60s, it was later revealed they
only had 4. 10. If you look at the CIA field agent training
manual from the 50s, you’ll find the secret CIA shoelace code. This showed how you could tie your laces in
certain ways to tell someone something. It might mean I have some information, or
keep following me. 9. In 1959, Soviet Premier Khrushchev wanted
to take his family to visit Disneyland when he was visiting the U.S. He found out he was barred. The State Department was later apologetic,
saying he could take his family another day to see Mickey Mouse and co. The U.S said the reason for the snub was only
because of safety reasons. Soviet leaders weren’t exactly popular in
the states in those days. Putin didn’t go either; he just made his
own version of Disneyland in Russia. 8. If your job is related to the destruction
of the world and you know how tenuous our safety is, you might as well have some bad
habits, eh? Well, check out the 1960s Semi-Automatic Ground
Environment computer for the department of defense. It’s got built-in ashtrays. 7. But health of citizens wasn’t a big concern
of the USA in those days. Indeed, during the 50s and 60s, the military
secretly used biological weapons on parts of the country to see what would happen. People got sick in San Francisco, but it was
worse elsewhere, especially if you were poor. A sociologist named Lisa Martino-Taylor said
St. Louis was particularly used for these experiments, and the reason was because there
were plenty of poor black neighborhoods you could spray with radioactive particles. Live Science says no one would have died because
of the experiments, but people were definitely exposed to toxic particles. “The Army exposed St. Louis residents to
a maximum of 14.4 cigarettes’ worth of cadmium over 31 months,” said the website. 6. During the cold war, U.S. air force pilots
were given eye patches. They were told that a nuclear explosion would
blind them and make flying impossible. So, if they got the Defcon 2 or “DEFense
readiness CONdition 2” alert, which means “Next step to nuclear war. Armed Forces ready to deploy and engage in
fewer than 6 hours,” they should put on the patch and save one eye. 5. The military had programs in the 50s and 60s
whereby they would tattoo children with their blood group. It seems the programs were only in Indiana
and Utah. These kids then became walking blood banks,
which is handy if everyone around you is dying. “I still have my atomic tattoo (O-), but,
as I grew it got distorted, so it’s pretty illegible today,” said one person, now an
adult. 4. Back to animals and a bright idea from the
Brits. MI5 didn’t need exceptionally expensive
cats, what they used were the entirely expendable rodents called gerbils. “MI5 sleuths planned to use gerbils to trap
secret agents, terrorists, and subversives during the cold war,” writes the Guardian. The plan was simple. Gerbils can smell sweat easily. Bad people at airports sweat and release an
adrenalin scent. So, gerbils were left at airport counters. Theses crafty creatures had been trained to
push a lever if they smelled someone releasing lots of adrenalin scent. And yes, this is real. 3. In 1962, the U.S. detonated a hydrogen bomb
in space, creating what it called a spectacular light show. Why did the U.S. do this? Just to see what would happen, of course. The test was given a cool name: “Starfish
Prime.” 2. When the Brits weren’t training gerbils
to work at airports, they were busy lying about H-Bombs. In the 90s, the US Department of Energy released
archives from 1958. In those archives were documents pertaining
to the British bluffing about an H-Bomb test in the 50s. H-Bombs are known as fusion bombs, while atomic
bombs are fission bombs. The former is much more powerful. The Brits wanted to be seen as a superpower
that shouldn’t be messed with, so they faked the whole thing – in that they blew up an
A-Bomb and said it was an H-Bomb. 1. We are going to end on something funny. The story goes that a man called Frank Wisner
who was managing psychological warfare for the US planned to drop thousands of condoms
over the Soviet army from the air. The condoms would be labeled ‘medium’,
and this was supposed to demoralize Soviet troops as they contemplated their well-endowed
American foes. Wisner was said to have had a great sense
of humor, but that didn’t stop him from killing himself in 1965. Hmm, I guess that story wasn’t as funny
as it was supposed to be… So, there you have it. 50 lesser known facts about the the Cold War. There are so many more secrets we didn’t
speak about today, but maybe we’ll come back to this another time. Can you think of a cold war fun fact that
we failed to mention? Let us know in the comments! Also, be sure to check out our other video
called Average American vs Average Russian! Thanks for watching, and, as always, don’t
forget to like, share, and subscribe. See you next time!

How to stop politics from controlling your emotions | Tim Snyder


History is actually the one thing I think
which allows you to get out ahead. It’s very ironic, because when people think
about history they think, “Well, history means that things are going on in the world
and a historian is off reading dusty books,” which, fair enough, I would love to be reading
lots of dusty books right now. I will concede the point. But when you’ve read all those dusty books,
what happens is that you have the ability to see certain patterns, you have a sense
of what fits together and what doesn’t fit together. Isaiah Berlin wrote an essay on the possibility
of the scientific history, in which he said that “history is not about knowing what
happens, it’s about knowing what can’t happen.” That is extremely useful. So a historian will never look at a problem
and say, “This is entirely new,” a historian will look at a problem and try to find the
familiar aspects of it. And that’s a very big advantage over other
forms of analysis, because if you look at something and say that it’s totally new,
that disables the mind right away, it also tends to disable, I think, political action. Because if something is totally new it’s
very easy to take the next step and say, “Well if it’s totally new then what can I do about
it?” Or you can say, “Since it’s totally new
all things are permitted,” which can also lead you in some really unproductive direction. So the first thing the historian will do is
we’ll say, “Whatever this problem is, it’s not entirely new.” When a historian is confronted by something
very surprising like the 2016 campaign in the United States, the historian is likely
to say, “Well, the things that this candidate is saying aren’t true, but the possibility
this kind of campaign could work is a real possibility.” So the historian is freed from, or should
be freed from the conviction of the day, and the historian automatically looks back to
other moments where similar things like this coalesced. So for example, we’re in a second globalization. There was a first globalization in the late
19th and early 20th century. The second globalization began, our globalization
began, with all kinds of promises that technology and export-lead growth would lead to enlightenment
and liberalism—the first globalization did too. The first globalization crashed. It crashed into the first World War, the Great
Depression, the second World War, Stalinism, the Holocaust. A historian looking at today won’t think
“Well that whole pattern is going to repeat itself,” but the historian looking at it
today can say, “Yeah, a politician who says that globalization is a problem not a solution,
a politician who says that globalization is a matter of particular people plotting against
us as opposed to objective threats to the country or objective problems, that kind of
politician has a chance. That can work. Things like that have worked before.” And once you see that it can come together
that way, it’s not that you’re sure, it’s not that you predict it (although I have made
some predictions that were right), but it’s more that you can see it coming together,
and then that allows you to get out ahead, and you can think, “Okay, well, if this
is going to come together this way then I can also steal from the past people’s correct
reactions to it or people’s wise reactions to it. I can use those things from the failure of
the first of globalization, I can just borrow them, I can now extract them and put them
in the 21st century,” which is what I did in On Tyranny. So rather than saying, “Okay I’m going
to wait” – because by the time the pattern actually coalesces it’s too late! You have to see that the pattern might be
coalescing and then start messing with the pattern, that the way that you see in coalescing
comes from history, and the tools that you use to start messing with it also come from
history. So in that way, ironically, history can allow
you to get out ahead of something, whereas the journalists naturally have to describe
that—that’s their job. The social scientists they’re going to wait
to categorize it, and they’re kind of trapped. I mean another irony is that historians are
comfortable with novelty, because we know things change all the time. When your perspective is a thousand years
or even a hundred years, you know stuff changes. You know there are turning points. And you know that the stuff which people thought
was unbelievable yesterday will not only be believable but will even seem normal today. Any historian can see that. So that gives us a certain edge I think. The second thing that a historian will do
is that a historian will be skeptical about sources. So if you say “the problem is X”, a historian
will instantly cock his or her head and think, “Okay well, this person says the problem
is X, but let’s cast our minds out immediately to try to think of what the other 15 relevant
perspectives on this problem are. Is it actually a problem? Maybe it’s something which is desirable
from certain points of view.” So that’s a methodological reflex that,
whatever your first person perspective is, that’s not the truth for me. The truth automatically has to come from comparing
your perspective to a whole bunch of other perspectives. And that’s useful also because it can preserve
the dynamism and the urgency of something while taking some of the subjective spin from
it. So ideally a historian or a historically-trained
person is less likely to be played by the presentation of a problem and more likely
to skeptically figure out what its contours are. And the third advantage that historians have,
and maybe this is the one which I find to be most relevant in the present, is that historians
see time as a flow or as something which is continuous. And this is incredibly important now, because
the way that the news cycle works or the way that what I call the “politics of eternity”
works is that you get your brain bludgeoned every day by the emotions of the moment as
transmitted by very skilled political actors through very efficient media, and the result
is that it’s so easy to either be elated or outraged every day and to experience the
day as a kind of complete unit—where you wake up, you’re shocked, you’re outraged,
and then by the end of the day you’re dissipated, you’re exhausted, and then you just begin
this cycle again. Historians don’t believe in cycles, or at
least good historians don’t believe in cycles. Historians think that there are long-term
patterns; however exciting or however exhausting or however terrifying the thing is today,
it’s part of some longer sweep. So to give an extreme example, even nuclear
war—so in the last few months the subject of nuclear war has come up from all kinds
of directions. Even nuclear war has a history. There’s only been one, and that was in 1945,
and there have been a lot of moments where it was likely or less likely (like Cuba). So even something which is dramatic and which
is, as it were, designed to shock you out of thinking in time, even that can be put
in some kind of context. In other words the weapons that are designed
to get you to stop thinking, like “Let’s be afraid of the foreigners” or “let’s
be afraid of nuclear war,” if you think about those threats over time as part as some
kind of larger flow you’re less likely to be disabled, and you’re more likely to distinguish
the rhetoric from what might actually be the risk.

What If The US Paid Off Its Debt?


All countries flirt with a national deficit
at one time or another. But the USA, with more than $21 trillion in
debt as of March 2018, is having a relationship with debt so close they’re practically in
bed together. This mega figure is greater than its economic
output (1-7% of GDP) and, yes, it seems to keep on rising as a general trend. But how did the debt grow that high? And is there any way to bring the balance
sheet back to zero? Why do countries get themselves into debt,
and what are the methods for paying off the deficit? Today we take a look at the events leading
up to the accumulation of this gigantic debt, and we determine if there is any way for the
US to turn this massive deficit around, in this episode of the infographics show – What
if the US Paid off its Debt? Debt is created by either excessive spending
or deep tax cuts. Sometimes tax cuts are justified in order
to spur the economy out of a recession. In 1939 the US debt was at $40 billion and
by the end of the Second World War this rose to $271 billion. After some fluctuations it was still at $271
billion in 1957. But by 1977 it had risen to $699 billion. The US has a long and rich history of spending
heavily on military. Since the nation’s existence since 1776
it has spent 225 years at war and just 21 years in peace. That’s 94% of the countries time at war
and just 6% at peace. US debt spiked after the 9/11 attacks when
America increased military spending to launch its well organized War on Terror campaign. Between 2001 and 2017 the War on Terror cost
$1.9 trillion dollars, so it appears that much of the US debt is incurred by massive
spending in an aggressive defense policy over a long sustained period of time. While some argue that jobs would be lost by
a reduced expenditure on defense a counter argument is that other industries could be
created. Other factors, besides war, contributing to
the rise in debt include the $24.7 billion hurricane Katrina disaster and a $350 billion
bank bailout. The current financial situation is, however
you look at it, a bit of a mess. The country hasn’t always been broke. In January of 1835, the US government succeeded
in paying off its entire national debt – in full for the first time in its history – but
slipped back into the red again shortly thereafter. In the January of 1836 the national debt was
sitting at a comparatively tiny $37,000. From then on the American debt fluctuated
a bit for several years but remained relatively low until around 1863. Shortly after 1948 America began to pay down
the massive debt incurred in the 1930s and 1940s but shortly after 1982 the debt began
to build. From 1992 to 2000 the debt began to be paid
back again only for that huge spike after 2001, and 2008, and the rest as they say,
is history. So just what is national debt? Government debt is money that has not been
raised by taxes and has been spent on goods and services. This money has been borrowed. When a government runs a budget deficit it
costs them more to administer the country than it receives in revenue. To make good this shortfall the government
has two choices. 1 – It prints more money or 2 – It borrows
more money. Although printing more money sounds simple
enough to do, doing so would lead to galloping or hyperinflation. Galloping inflation is when the price of goods
and service rise more than 10 percent per month and hyperinflation is when the price
of services or goods rise more than 50 percent in a month. To print and distribute more money leads to
inflation if there is no corresponding economic growth to justify the surplus cash. Instead governments issue bonds that investors
invest in. The government then gets the money from the
investors and the investors receive an interest on the funds borrowed over a period of time. Just over half of the current $21 trillion
US debt is owed to US investors with the remainder half owed to investors outside the United
States. The more the debt grows the more is spent
on interest repayments and less is allocated to what the government should really be doing
with taxpayers money – investing in local public services. Over time governments risk running into bankruptcy
and seeing their economy collapsing. The US has declared itself bankrupt five times
since its formation. Once when it could not meet foreign debts,
and 4 times due to internal debts. The first time the US became bankrupt was
in 1790 and the last occasion was in 1933. But America is not alone. A total of 83 countries have become bankrupt
in the last 200 years. Debt can be reduced in one of two ways. Debt is forgiven or debt is paid back. Most of the people, countries, and organizations
who are owed money by the States are unlikely to forgive the debt so the US will probably
have to pay it back at some point if it is to reduce the deficit to zero. For a government to start paying back its
debt it will need to spend less than it earns or receives in taxation and run a budget surplus. Seems simple enough, but the problem is that
society becomes accustomed to the level of government spending especially if they directly
benefit from it. Nobody wants to give up what they already
have and nobody wants to pay more taxes. Society in general wouldn’t wish to see
a cut in spending on healthcare, schools, and other essential services. Cutting back on spending leads to less votes,
and a loss of power to the next politician who promises more spending. This is how the problem escalates. So if the American government somehow paid
back its debt then the taxpayer would see more of their tax dollars spent on local government
services and less of that dollar paid back to investors in interest. The overall standard of living should also
rise for most Americans. Voters would need to accept short term financial
pain for long term gain. But with the American political system set
up as it is, a new president could come along and put all of those good years to waste in
a manic spending frenzy. It has happened in the past and will probably
happen again in the unlikely event that America managed to reduce its debt to zero. But who could pay off this rising national
debt? Really you have two choices. The lower and middle class taxpayers could
pay off the debt through tax increases or by inflation or the big business monopolies,
high class politicians and corporations could settle it through targeted taxation. Of course politicians are like everybody else. They don’t want to pay taxes and they don’t
want the corporations, lobbyists, and high net worth individuals who put them where they
are to pay taxes either. To heavily tax the poor normally leads to
sharp rises in inflation and a shrinking economy which is bad for everyone. Paying the debt in full today wouldn’t actually
make too much of a difference in the economy itself but it would speak volumes for US creditworthiness
should a crisis such as the 2008 financial crisis occur once more. So what would happen if the US paid off all
of its debt? The simple answer is – not much. The country would function as it does now
and will probably put in action plans to increase its debts once again. Countries function normally while in debt
as long as the debt is kept to a manageable level and it keeps up with its repayments. So what do you think about the US Debt? Should it be paid off and if so who should
do the paying? Do countries really function better when they
are in debt? Let us know your thoughts in the comments. Also, be sure to watch our other video called
Japan’s Population Problem. Thanks for watching, and as always, don’t
forget to like, share and subscribe, see you next time!