Former Sen. Jim Webb (D-Virginia), a presidential candidate who is barely registering on national polls, made an impression at Tuesday night's Democratic debate with his answer to a question asking which enemy he was proudest to have made.

The Vietnam War veteran said his enemy of choice was the "soldier that threw their grenade that wounded me." He then added: "But he's not around right now to talk to."

Webb was most likely referring to the incident in 1969 that earned him the Navy Cross, the second-highest military decoration that is awarded to Navy and Marine Corps members.

When Webb received the honor, this is how that incident was described, according to the Military Times (emphasis added):

When the hostile soldiers failed to answer him and threw a grenade which detonated dangerously close to him, First Lieutenant Webb detonated a claymore mine in the bunker aperture, accounting for two enemy casualties and disclosing the entrance to a tunnel.

Despite the smoke and debris from the explosion and the possibility of enemy soldiers hiding in the tunnel, he then conducted a thorough search which yielded several items of equipment and numerous documents containing valuable intelligence data.

Continuing the assault, he approached a third bunker and was preparing to fire into it when the enemy threw another grenade. Observing the grenade land dangerously close to his companion, First Lieutenant Webb simultaneously fired his weapon at the enemy, pushed the Marine away from the grenade, and shielded him from the explosion with his own body. Although sustaining painful fragmentation wounds from the explosion, he managed to throw a grenade into the aperture and completely destroy the remaining bunker. 

The Washington Post highlighted a 2007 Rolling Stone story that expands on the incident:

Webb was leading his platoon toward what he thought was an empty complex of bunkers. As he and his men approached, three Viet Cong soldiers jumped out. Webb grabbed one and drew his .45 on the other two, capturing all three. Webb and another soldier moved on to a second bunker; this time, a grenade sprayed him with shrapnel, but he detonated a claymore at the bunker's entrance, killing two Viet Cong. Webb kept going, approaching a third bunker, where another grenade detonated. Webb shot the Viet Cong who threw it and hurled himself in front of his Marine, absorbing the brunt of the blast. Even then he kept fighting, lobbing another grenade into the bunker, killing the last of his enemies.

In his mind, it was the compression of his past into a moment of perfect, unthinking violence, redeeming all the history that had put him opposite a stranger and a grenade on the opposite side of the world.

Time pointed out that Webb was the only combat veteran in the 2016 presidential race.

Webb told Time after the debate: "I understand foreign policy and defense policy. I've worked on it every possible way you could do it. I grew up in the military I served in combat. My son served in combat. I spent five years in the Pentagon. I served as a military planner in the region."

He's a long-shot candidate compared with Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), her chief rival for the nomination.

SEE ALSO: Democratic candidates were asked to name their biggest enemies — and one gave an unexpected answer

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Obama has been getting the best of Trump for years

Former Sen. Jim Webb (D-Virginia), a presidential candidate who is barely registering on national polls, made an impression at Tuesday night's Democratic debate with his answer to a question asking which enemy he was proudest to have made.

The Vietnam War veteran said his enemy of choice was the "soldier that threw their grenade that wounded me." He then added: "But he's not around right now to talk to."

Webb was most likely referring to the incident in 1969 that earned him the Navy Cross, the second-highest military decoration that is awarded to Navy and Marine Corps members.

When Webb received the honor, this is how that incident was described, according to the Military Times (emphasis added):

When the hostile soldiers failed to answer him and threw a grenade which detonated dangerously close to him, First Lieutenant Webb detonated a claymore mine in the bunker aperture, accounting for two enemy casualties and disclosing the entrance to a tunnel.

Despite the smoke and debris from the explosion and the possibility of enemy soldiers hiding in the tunnel, he then conducted a thorough search which yielded several items of equipment and numerous documents containing valuable intelligence data.

Continuing the assault, he approached a third bunker and was preparing to fire into it when the enemy threw another grenade. Observing the grenade land dangerously close to his companion, First Lieutenant Webb simultaneously fired his weapon at the enemy, pushed the Marine away from the grenade, and shielded him from the explosion with his own body. Although sustaining painful fragmentation wounds from the explosion, he managed to throw a grenade into the aperture and completely destroy the remaining bunker. 

The Washington Post highlighted a 2007 Rolling Stone story that expands on the incident:

Webb was leading his platoon toward what he thought was an empty complex of bunkers. As he and his men approached, three Viet Cong soldiers jumped out. Webb grabbed one and drew his .45 on the other two, capturing all three. Webb and another soldier moved on to a second bunker; this time, a grenade sprayed him with shrapnel, but he detonated a claymore at the bunker's entrance, killing two Viet Cong. Webb kept going, approaching a third bunker, where another grenade detonated. Webb shot the Viet Cong who threw it and hurled himself in front of his Marine, absorbing the brunt of the blast. Even then he kept fighting, lobbing another grenade into the bunker, killing the last of his enemies.

In his mind, it was the compression of his past into a moment of perfect, unthinking violence, redeeming all the history that had put him opposite a stranger and a grenade on the opposite side of the world.

Time pointed out that Webb was the only combat veteran in the 2016 presidential race.

Webb told Time after the debate: "I understand foreign policy and defense policy. I've worked on it every possible way you could do it. I grew up in the military I served in combat. My son served in combat. I spent five years in the Pentagon. I served as a military planner in the region."

He's a long-shot candidate compared with Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), her chief rival for the nomination.

SEE ALSO: Democratic candidates were asked to name their biggest enemies — and one gave an unexpected answer

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Obama has been getting the best of Trump for years

There's a long list of contenders for the strangest thing Gunnar Garfors has eaten while traveling to every country in the world. But a king cobra snake in its entirety — even the blood — takes the cake. 

Produced by Jenner Deal

Follow BI Video:On Facebook

Join the conversation about this story »

After months of internal debate within the Obama administration, the guided missile destroyer USS Lassen transited within 12 nautical miles of Subi Reef, one of China’s artificially-built features in the South China Sea, on October 27 in what is termed a “freedom of navigation” (FON) operation.

It was accompanied by two maritime surveillance aircraft, a P-8A Poseidon and a P-3 Orion.

What was the purpose of the operation?

FON operations are intended to challenge maritime claims that the United States considers excessive under international law.

The US military has been conducting these operations regularly all over the world since 1979; in 2014 US forces used FON operations to contest claims made by most of the South China Sea claimants, including China. However, the United States has not conducted FON operations inside 12 nautical miles of any feature in the South China Sea since 2012, according to Assistant Secretary of Defense David Shear.

This particular operation was intended to assert that the United States does not recognize a 12-nautical-mile territorial sea or any other maritime entitlements generated by reefs that were originally submerged but on which China has built artificial islands. It was not meant to challenge China’s claim to Subi Reef itself.

FON operations are not primarily about military deterrence or diplomatic messaging, though in a politically charged atmosphere like the South China Sea those play a role. At its root, FON operations are legal exercises to reinforce the United States’ — and in this case the overwhelming majority of the international community’s — interpretations of international maritime law.

They are a means to ensure that US naval, coast guard, and civilian ships, and by extension those of all nations, maintain unrestricted access to their rights at sea.

In this particular case, the United States also needed to demonstrate its commitment to freedom of navigation as regional allies and partners had grown concerned in the wake of China’s massive island building and construction of potential military facilities including airstrips in the Spratlys.

The US government takes no position on the territorial disputes in the Spratly Islands, but does take a strong position on what kinds of claims are made to the waters surrounding those features. The United States shares the concerns of regional states that the intentional ambiguity of China’s claims to vast stretches of water and seabed are a leading driver of tensions in the South China Sea.

U.S. officials regularly call on all parties to the dispute to bring their claims into accordance with international law. The FON operation around Subi is part of that overall strategy — it is a practical demonstration that the United States will not accede to maritime claims that violate international law, and it places pressure on China’s leaders to give a legal rationale for their objections to the operation.

Has China claimed a territorial sea around Subi Reef?

China has been deliberately ambiguous about its claims to waters in the South China Sea. Although it has not specified exactly what its claim is around each of the built-up rocks or low-tide elevations in the Spratlys, China’s 1992 law on the territorial sea claims 12-nautical-mile territorial waters from all Chinese territory without distinction.

In addition, the Chinese foreign ministry has implied that China claims territorial sovereignty over waters and airspace surrounding submerged reefs. In a statement on October 9, a foreign ministry spokesperson said that China does not “condone infringement of China’s territorial sea and airspace by any country under the pretext of maintaining freedom of navigation and overflight.”

People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) ships have warned U.S. surveillance aircraft flying near its artificial islands, including Subi Reef, to stay away from its undefined “military alert zone.”

How has China reacted to the US's Freedom of Navigation operation?

Two PLAN vessels, the Lanzhou (a Type 052C missile destroyer) and Taizhou (a Type 053 frigate), shadowed the Lassen and issued warnings to get out of the waters around Subi, but apparently did not interfere with the operation.

Since US media has been reporting that the Obama administration was considering conducting a FON operation for the past six months, China was well prepared for this eventuality, even though Washington did not notify Beijing in advance.

China’s foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang criticized the exercise, saying the US Navy ship “illegally entered” the waters near the islands “without receiving permission from the Chinese government,” “threatened China’s sovereignty and security interests,” and “endangered regional peace and stability.”

This language suggests that China in fact does claim a 12-nautical-mile territorial sea around formerly submerged reefs that it has built into artificial islands, which is contrary to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

In addition, the spokesman warned that China would “firmly respond to any deliberate provocation by any country.” Vice Foreign Minister Zhang Yesui summoned US ambassador to China Max Baucus to protest what he claimed was a “serious provocation.”

How are other regional states likely to respond?

The majority of countries in the region are likely to welcome the U.S. decision to conduct FON operations around Chinese artificial islands that were previously submerged reefs.

The other claimants, non-claimants in maritime Southeast Asia, as well as nations outside the region, such as Japan and Australia, are increasingly concerned about China’s militarization of its islands, its coercive behavior, and the possibility that China might declare an Air Defense Identification Zone in the South China Sea as it did in the East China Sea in November 2013.

Australia, Japan, and the Philippines have issued statements supporting the U.S. action. Most other nations will likely opt to refrain from making public statements to avoid provoking China’s ire. 

What comes next?

US officials have made clear that this will not be the last FON operation in and around the Spratly Islands.

There will be follow-up operations around other Chinese features and perhaps around those of other claimant nations in order to further the message that FON operations are regular, non-provocative aspects of U.S. policy not specifically targeted at China, and to challenge other types of excessive claims (the recent operation was tailored specifically at objecting to the ability of an artificial island to generate a territorial sea).

These operations will be narrowly defined to achieve legal ends, and will happen with regularity but not so frequently as to be intentionally provocative.

For the same reason, it is unlikely that the United States will seek to perform joint FON operations with other regional states, though it continues to urge Australia, Japan, and other regional partners to perform operations of their own to assert their rights in the South China Sea.

Follow-on FON operations might include a transit or patrol around Mischief Reef, which like Subi Reef was submerged at high-tide before China’s reclamation work transformed it. They could include “innocent passage” transits within 12 nautical miles of some of China’s other features in the Spratlys that were above water before their expansion.

Innocent passage under international law is the right of civilian and military vessels to peacefully sail through the territorial waters of a foreign country as long as they do not perform activities not directly related to transit (including military exercises and intelligence gathering).

Chinese navy ships made an innocent passage through U.S. waters around the Aleutian Islands in early September. And they could, and in fact should, include similar operations around rocks or islands occupied by the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia in the Spratlys, as well as Vietnamese-occupied submerged features, as it has in the past.

Michael Jonathan Green is senior vice president for Asia and Japan Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS); Bonnie S. Glaser is a senior adviser for Asia and the director of the China Power Project at CSIS; Gregory B. Poling is the director of the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative and a fellow with the Sumitro Chair for Southeast Asia Studies at CSIS.

SEE ALSO: One uranium mine in Niger says a lot about China's nuclear energy ambitions

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Meet America's THAAD: One of the world's most advanced missile-defense systems that has China spooked

I’ll never forget the first time I saw “Apocalypse Now.”

Captivated, I stared at the screen for the 196-minute runtime as Willard journeyed upriver in the midst of the Vietnam War to assassinate the general-turned-rogue-demigod Colonel Kurtz.

Afterward, I felt disgusted, exhausted, relieved, and forever altered in my way of thinking about war.

Way more important than my first screening, however, is the story behind the making of “Apocalypse Now.” The film was legendarily produced over budget (from an initial $14 million to costing over $31.5 million) over time (principal photography was planned for six months, but ended up lasting over a year), and over the top. Most people know it took over three years to shoot and edit.

And the screenplay was based on Joseph Conrad’s novella “Heart of Darkness.” And that Martin Sheen suffered a heart attack during filming, but got well enough to finish his work on set. And that Marlon Brando was paid $3.5 million for 15 total minutes of screen time. So I dug deep into “the horror, the horror” to present these 10 obscure facts about “Apocalypse Now.”

1. Colonel Kurtz was based on a real person.

Marlon Brando’s Colonel Kurtz is thought to be modeled after Anthony Poshepny. Poshepny, a CIA operative, was dispatched to train a secret CIA-funded army of hill tribes in Laos during the Vietnam War. Much like Kurtz, he dropped severed heads in enemy locations as a form of psychological warfare.

2. Props got a little too real on set.

One props manager attempted to take the film’s sense of authenticity to the extreme, going so far as to source actual human cadavers for scenes requiring dead bodies. A production manager put the kibosh on the cadavers after local police began investigating. It turns out the cadaver supplier was robbing area cemeteries for their “inventory.”

3. George Lucas almost shot first.

Lucas was the film’s original director. He intended to shoot “Apocalypse Now” as a faux documentary in Vietnam during the war, on 16 mm film with real soldiers. But Lucas was too busy with “Star Wars” and “American Graffiti” and had to drop the project. Lucas then gave Francis Ford Coppola his blessing to direct.

4. You can only watch the 2001 re-release. 

“Apocalypse Now: Redux” is the only commercially available version of the film. The 2001 re-issue added 49 additional minutes to the runtime, and used a special Technicolor film process. It required layering multiple negatives to produce rich color saturation and consistent black tones. It also required cutting the original negative.

Coppola gave the editor the okay, believing the redux was an improvement over the film’s first version.

5. The film’s title makes fun of hippies.

“Apocalypse Now” is not the film’s original title. Early drafts of the 1,000-plus page screenplay were named “The Psychedelic Soldier.” It was changed to “Apocalypse Now” after screenwriter John Milius was inspired to make fun of a hippie pin bearing the words “Nirvana Now.”

6. Animal rights activists hated the film.

After its release, the American Humane Association deemed the film “unacceptable.” Unfortunately, the water buffalo ceremonially slaughtered by the Montagnards was real. (Pour one out for the water buffalo.)

7. Sound editing created a breakthrough in stereo technology.

Sound libraries at the time didn’t have stereo recordings of weapons. So, sound editor Walter Murch recorded the latest military guns firing in Dolby Stereo 70 mm Six Track for the film’s 70 mm release. The final product resulted in 5.1 surround sound, aka with two channels of sound behind the audience, and three from behind the movie screen.

8. The most famous line is completely original.

“Apocalypse Now” was highly referential, drawing its inspiration and dialogue from works by documentary filmmaker Werner Herzog, poet T.S. Eliot, author Michael Herr, and more. But the infamous line, “I love the smell of napalm in the morning” was totally original.

9. Real combat took place during production.

The film shot on location in the Philippines. After Coppola met with president Ferdinand Marcos about the project, the president loaned helicopter gunships to the production. During filming, Marcos had to recall the gunships for actual combat against a rebel army.

10. The title of the film isn’t spoken.

It does, however, make an appearance as graffiti in the background of a scene:

SEE ALSO: 10 Things You Probably Didn't Know About 'Full Metal Jacket'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: North Korea stages a massive military parade — and they say they're ready for war with 'US imperialists'

The South China Sea is once again at the center of international attention following the U.S. decision on Oct. 27 to send a warship within 12 nautical miles of Chinese-held islands in disputed waters. This was not unexpected; Washington has long been saying for that it would do so at the time of its choosing. It is now China's turn to react.

Maritime disputes in the Pacific Rim carry a great significance in terms of the regional balance of power, and the South China Sea has become the most visible area of tension. Stratfor has been monitoring these waters closely and below is a selection of key analyses on the subject. Together, they explain the foundations of current — and future — tensions in the Pacific.

SEE ALSO: China: We will take 'all necessary' measures in response to US Navy patrols of disputed South China Sea

Great Power Politics in the South China Sea

Oct. 26, 2015: Beijing does fear one thing in the South China Sea: the involvement of Japan. Tokyo, long a passive power in the Pacific Rim, is now embarking on the long process of reasserting itself. If Japan decides to become more involved in the South China Sea, China’s strategy will become significantly more complicated.

Recent signs indicate this may be starting. Tokyo recently carried out search-and-rescue drills with the Philippines, as well as other exercises with Southeast Asian states, flying an EP3 out of Palawan over parts of the South China Sea. Japan is also negotiating a visiting forces agreement with Manila to allow Japanese ships and planes to refuel and resupply in the Philippines.

It is also offering to fund and supply ships and aircraft to the Philippine and Vietnamese coast guards and navies. And Tokyo and the United States have agreed in principle to carry out joint patrols in the South China Sea, perhaps as early as next year.

Ending Taiwan's Broad South China Sea Claims

Oct. 2, 2015: The United States sees Taiwan, along with nations such as Japan, as allies to counterbalance a rising China.

In the past altering island claims would have been anathema for a Taiwanese Kuomintang-controlled government that has steadfastly upheld the "One China Principle," which maintains that mainland China and Taiwan are part of a single entity with competing governments.

But Taiwan's opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has a strong chance of winning the January 2016 presidential election. With few ties to the mainland and little interest in maintaining the One China narrative, a DPP administration could conform with U.S. wishes and, in doing so, alter the South China Sea strategy of both Taipei and Beijing.

Forecasting Japan: China Rises

Sept. 29, 2015: Washington's strategic imperatives in the Pacific will not change, but its methods will. The United States will transition gradually in the coming years toward indirect and less costly ways of enforcing its writ. This will mean devolving responsibility to regional partners such as the Philippines, Australia, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan.

The United States' shift is already beginning to push its allies in East Asia to become much more proactive in defending their security interests. Japan is at the forefront of this movement. In late 2012, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe launched an initiative to revive Japan's regional economic, diplomatic and military standing.

Since that time, Japan has made strides in regional diplomacy and military expansion and normalization. Still, to be successful, Japan will need to dramatically expand its efforts.

Halong Bay is one of Vietnam's most stunning attractions.

The name translates to "where the dragon descends," and, according to local legend, the bay's islands were formed when a dragon charged from the mountains towards the coast. Its tail carved out valleys and crevasses until the dragon hit the water, flooding the area and leaving nothing but peaks visible.

The bay sits off Vietnam's northeastern coast, and has incredibly serene emerald waters that are home to multiple small limestone islands covered by rain forests. It's a popular spot for boat tours and cave explorers, and no trip to Vietnam would be complete without seeing it.

Story by Sarah Schmalbruch and editing by Chelsea Pineda

INSIDER is on Facebook: Follow us here

Join the conversation about this story »

In this excerpt from "We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young," coauthors Lt. Gen. Harold G. Moore and Joseph L. Galloway describe the first moments of the battle of Ia Drang in 1965, which set the tone of the war in Vietnam and even changed the direction of the conflict.

Captain Ray Lefebvre, commander of Delta Company, was about to earn his Combat Infantryman’s Badge, a Silver Star, and a Purple Heart, all in the next seven minutes.

He remembers, “When we came in, the mountain was off to our left and we were taking a lot of fire. We settled down near the wood line. There was lots of fire coming from the woods.

Taboada was hit in the hand while we were hovering.

“I was starting to unhook my seat belt when I felt a round crease the back of my neck.

I turned to my right and saw that my radio operator had been hit in the head; the same round that cut me killed him.

He just slumped forward, still buckled in. Nicklas was a young guy, just twenty, came from Niagara Falls, New York. I jumped out.

Firing was coming from the mountain, and three or four of us moved about fifty to seventy-five yards toward the trees, to the sound of the firing, and stopped in a small fold in the ground.”

With Crandall, flying Serpent Yellow 3, were Chief Warrant Officers Riccardo J. Lombardo, thirty-four, of Hartford, Connecticut, and Alex S. (Pop) Jekel, forty-three, of Seattle, Washington.

Pop Jekel was the father of nine children. During World War II, at the age of twenty, he had flown B-24s out of England, and B-29s during the postwar years, until he left the service in 1950. Pop Jekel reenlisted in 1952 and had been flying helicopters since 1963.

Lombardo was in the pilot’s seat and recalls that lift: “As I approached I saw the battle smoke getting heavy. I told Pop Jekel to get on the controls with me. As my skids touched down, my troops leaped out. I saw men lying on the ground. I felt and heard bangs on the back of my seat. I glanced at Pop and he was staring straight ahead, his eyes as big as pie plates and his mouth wide open. I looked ahead and saw a man about fifty yards ahead on the edge of the LZ. He was standing in plain view, pointing a weapon at us. I thought it was one of our people, but something didn’t look right. His uniform was khaki color and he wasn’t wearing a helmet.

“Before I even noticed the muzzle flashes, three holes appeared in my windshield. In my mind I was asking, ‘Why is that bastard shooting at me?’ As fast as that man appeared, he disappeared. Then I was off the ground and banking to the right in a climb, and all the while red streaks were following me. To that point not a word had been spoken over the intercom. Before I could say a word, Pop Jekel keyed the intercom and said: ‘I flew thirty-one missions in B-24s in World War II and that’s the closest I’ve ever come to swallowing my balls.’ That was the last lift of troops I made into the LZ.

“Lombardo’s Huey was so badly shot up it was barely able to limp to Plei Me for patching and then back to Camp Holloway for further repairs. Rick and Pop spent the rest of that afternoon listening to the battle on the tactical radio and sucking down several beers.”

First Lieutenant Roger K. Bean was flying a Huey in the second wave of birds behind Crandall’s. “When we landed I was flying on Captain Ed Freeman’s right wing. We were all taking fire and the number four ship didn’t look like he was going to make it out of X-Ray. I was in the pilot’s seat and Captain Gene Mesch was in the left seat. I was looking over my shoulder at the number four ship when we got hit by AK-47 fire. A round came through the door in front of Gene, entered the back of my flight helmet, tore a hole in the side of my head and came out through the front of the helmet. I was bleeding like a stuck pig and my flight helmet was turned sideways on my head with the earphone covering my eyes. At first I thought I was blind. That concerned me because I was still flying. Gene took the controls and the door gunner patched me up. I was X-rayed at the Special Forces camp and went back to the unit after they sewed me up.”

Several of the Hueys in the first wave of eight took hits, but none crashed, none caught fire, none had to be abandoned in the landing zone. I radioed orders for the other eight Hueys in the fifth lift to get out of the area and wait until I got the landing zone cooled down and under control. They headed back east to Plei Me where they landed, off-loaded the troops, refueled, and shut down to wait.

Continue reading from this book at Feed Your Need to Read.

SEE ALSO: 17 wild facts about the Vietnam War

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Former Navy SEALs reveal what Hollywood gets wrong about the elite warriors

John Middaugh was Bill Warner's commander in the Vietnam War. Decades later, when both men were 73, Warner needed a new kidney.

 "For our troops he would have given an arm and a leg — why not a kidney?” Warner joked.

 Both were awarded Purple Hearts, and they kept in touch over the years.

 "Knowing that you can live the same life with one kidney, there's no reason not to do something like this,” Middaugh said.

Post-surgery, the friends are in good condition.

"It's been some ride. So we're looking forward for me getting my appetite back, getting my weight back, getting my handicap back down to 17,” Warner said. “It’s up to 36 now. The two of us will be playing golf."

Story by Jacob Shamsian, editing by Stephen Parkhurst

INSIDER is on Facebook Follow us here

Join the conversation about this story »

In the hillside of Hue, Vietnam – just outside the citadel walls of the nineteenth century imperial city,  a well-trained kung fu performer put a spear through his throat during a routine show. 

Produced by Arielle Berger

Follow BI Video:On Facebook

Join the conversation about this story »

From Isaac Davis during the American Revolution to Martin J. Wyatt and Ramon S. Morris in Operation Enduring Freedom, 1.1 million U.S. soldiers have died in combat since 1775.

John Kerry famously asked in a 1971 congressional testimony on Vietnam, “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”

As the war in Afghanistan continues to rage on after 14 years, and with the recent resurgence of violence in Iraq and now in Syria, a question like that undoubtedly weighs heavy in the minds of service members, veterans, and military decision makers.

The first soldier death marks the place where a war begins, at least for the troops. The last death bookends the war and earns that soldier a particular place in our nation’s history that is a dignified but dubious honor.

Here is a breakdown of the first and last fatalities of major U.S. wars.

SEE ALSO: The 7 enlisted jobs with awesome entry-level salaries

Revolutionary War

First: Isaac Davis (Apr. 19, 1775) — A gunsmith from Acton, Massachusetts, Davis served as a minuteman with his local company. During the Battle of Concord, his company was selected to advance first on the British. When asked if his company was afraid, Davis is recorded as having replied, “No, I am not and I haven’t a man that is!” As they advanced, Davis was shot through the heart. He is memorialized with a statue in the Acton Town Common.

Last: Unknown

Civil War

First: Elmer E. Ellsworth (May 24, 1861) — Union officer Ellsworth was a law clerk under Abraham Lincoln and an Army soldier. Just prior to the Civil War, he began recruiting for the 11th New York Volunteer Regiment.

The day after Virginia voters ratified the state convention’s decision to secede from the Union, Ellsworth and his troops entered Alexandria, Virginia, to assist in the occupation of the city. There, while taking down a Confederate flag, he was shot point blank by innkeeper James Jackson, a defender of slavery.

Noting his close relationship with the Lincolns, Ellsworth’s body was brought back to the White House, and his casket sat in the East Room. The funeral was attended by both Abraham Lincoln and his wife.

Last: John J. Williams (May 13, 1865) — Williams was a Union soldier who served with Company B, 34th Regiment Indiana Infantry. Though the Union and Confederate companies in southern Texas had a gentleman’s agreement not to fight, Union Col. Theodore Barrett ordered Lt. Col. David Branson to take troops stationed on the island of Brazos Santiago and attack Confederates at White’s Ranch and Palmito Ranch.

It was there that the 34th Regiment Indiana Infantry was met with a large Confederate cavalry force. They made the choice to retreat, and Williams was killed. It was a full month after Lee’s surrender at Appomattox. Williams died in a meaningless battle at Palmito Ranch.

World War I

First: Joseph William Guyton (May 24, 1918) — Guyton joined the Army as a part of the 126th Infantry Regiment and was attached to the 32nd Infantry Division, which was stationed in a German-held area of France.

There, he served as an automatic gunner, firing off intermittent rounds on a post near the line of resistance. The enemy shot a barrage of machine gun fire into the line where Guyton was struck and killed instantly.

President Warren G. Harding placed a presidential wreath on his coffin at a funeral ceremony for more than 5,000 fallen soldiers in Hoboken, New Jersey, in May 1921.

Last: Henry Gunther (Nov. 11, 1918) — Gunther did not join the Army, but was drafted into the 157th Brigade, 79th Infantry Division. His military unit, which deployed to France in July 1918, was part of the incoming American Expeditionary Forces.

During the Battle of the Argonne Forest, Gunther’s unit ran into a German ambush near the French town of Chaumont-devant-Damvillers, north of Verdun. Although a message had arrived that the war would be over within an hour, Gunther went after the two German machine-gun sections blocking a road.

The Germans attempted to wave him back and refused to fire until he was within a few yards of their position, but were ultimately forced to shoot. Killed instantly, he was the last American killed in action during World War I, taken out by a German bullet just one minute before the 11 a.m. armistice.

Hanoi (AFP) - Vietnam's economy in 2015 grew at its fastest pace in five years, official figures showed on Saturday, shaking off regional economic worries with strong exports, record foreign investment and buoyant domestic consumption.

The communist nation recorded a GDP growth rate of 6.68 percent, easily surpassing the government's 6.2 percent target with a figure that looks set to be one of Southeast Asia's strongest showings for the year.

"This growth rate is very important for the Vietnamese economy in the coming years in the context of falling world oil prices and instabilities in the international financial markets," Nguyen Bich Lam, director of the General Statistics Office, told reporters in Hanoi.

Many Asian economies have been rattled by troubles in China, where the world's second largest economy has suffered with its worst annual growth rates in a quarter of a century.

But Vietnam has proved resistant to the slowdown inside its giant northern neighbour. 

Exports rose 8.1 percent in the 12 months through December while imports climbed 12 percent.

Much of the growth has been fuelled by low oil prices and a flurry of international interest with disbursed foreign investment surging 17.4 percent compared to last year with a record-high of $14.5 billion.

The strong showing is a significant jump on the last two years.

In 2014 Vietnam's GDP growth was just under six percent, while that of 2013 was only 5.42 percent. 

On Wednesday, Vietnam released an annual inflation rate of just 0.63 percent in 2015, the lowest in 14 years.

Join the conversation about this story »

Vietnam sought to discourage its internet-savvy public on Wednesday from reading Web postings that disparaged its Communist Party, warning of an increase in "toxic" activity just weeks away from its scheduled leadership shakeup.

Using its new Facebook page, the government vowed to tackle social media criticism of the party without interrupting the Internet ahead its five-yearly congress in January, and said most attacks originated from outside of the country.

"These pages are most distorting and talking bad about our party's leaders, government and policies," Truong Minh Tuan, the deputy minister of information and communications, wrote in the Facebook posting.

"We expect more such bad pages appearing around the congress and election."

Managing the Internet, especially social media, has become a tricky balancing act for a party that for 40 years has tightly controlled Vietnam but risks upsetting its public if it introduces sweeping China-style Web restrictions.

Discussion of politics remains strictly taboo and authorities have dealt harshly with online dissent, with rights groups angered by the arrests, intimidation and jailing of dozens of bloggers and activists.

The Internet is hugely popular and used by 49 percent of the 90-million-strong population, of which two-thirds is under the age of 30, fuelling strong smartphone sales.

A third of Vietnamese use Facebook, a figure cited by Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung last month when he issued a 1,100-word open letter appealing to the public to use the platform responsibly. Dung was the first among the party elite to advocate the use of Facebook by the government.

The Communist Party congress will see a new party chief and powerful politburo elected by members of its Central Committee, but the identities of potential leadership candidates remain a tightly kept secret.

Much is riding on the congress, which is closely watched by foreign governments and investors keen to get a read on a process that could determine Vietnam's foreign policy trajectory and pace and scope of its pro-business reforms. 

(Writing by Martin Petty; Editing by Nick Macfie)

Join the conversation about this story »

China just made another potentially destabilizing move in some of the world's most disputed territory.

On January 4th, Vietnam formally accused China of violating its sovereignty and a recent confidence-building pact on Saturday by landing a plane on an airstrip Beijing built on an artificial island in a contested part of the South China Sea, according to Reuters.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Le Hai Binh said the airfield, had been "built illegally" on Fiery Cross Reef in the Spratly archipelago.

Meanwhile, China's Foreign Ministry rejected the complaint, saying that the test flight on the newly built airfield on the reef was a matter "completely within China's sovereignty," the Chinese state news agency Xinhua reported.

The incident is yet another high-profile spat between China and Vietnam over the statue sof hte South China Sea. In May of 2014, China moved several oil rigs into waters within Vietnam's exclusive economic zone, an unprecedented move that sparked a brief diplomatic crisis.

Currently five countries with competing claims in the region have built airstrips in the contested Spratly Islands.

Through actually landing an aircraft on the artificial island, Beijing is reinforcing its claim that these islands are part of the China's sovereign territory. That implies not only control over the islands' airspace, but also the islands' surrounding waters as well. These waters could include oil and gas deposits, and might also project into the exclusive economic zones of neighboring states — areas in which a country has the recognized legal right to assert its security and economic interests, even if these areas do not constitute sovereign territory.

The US rejects Beijing's assertion that the islands are in fact a sovereign part of China — a position that the US attempted to reinforce through deploying the USS Lasse on a "freedom of navigation" exercise near the artificial island in October of 2015.

Washington has criticized China's construction of artificial islands in the South China Sea and worries that Beijing plans to use them for military purposes, even though China says it has no hostile intent.

In response to the Chinese aircraft landing, Pooja Jhunjhunwala, a spokeswoman for the US State Department, said there was "a pressing need for claimants to publicly commit to a reciprocal halt to further land reclamation, construction of new facilities, and militarization of disputed features," according to Reuters.

Meanwhile, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said China used a civil aircraft to conduct the flight to test whether the airfield facilities meet civil-aviation standards, adding that "China has indisputable sovereignty over the Nansha Islands [the Chinese name for the Spratley Islands] and their adjacent waters," according to Reuters.

China claims almost all the South China Sea, which is believed to have huge deposits of oil and gas. About $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes through the sea each year every year.

Beijing has been building up facilities on the islands it controls. China's 2,740,000 square meter land grab in the South China Sea has huge military implications, according to experts at IHS Jane's and the Center for Strategic International Studies' Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative. The airfield on the Fiery Cross Reef is 3000 meters, or nearly two miles long, enough to accommodate large military aircraft. 

Satellite imagery collected by the AMTI also suggest possible sites for anti-air guns, anti-special forces installations, radar towers, filling stations, and ports with the capacity for large military ships and tankers.

The establishment of these islands as a military base would be an important tool for Chinese power projection in the region. This appears to fall in line with other steps they've recently taken, like building a second aircraft carrier, developing naval bases in Africa, and flying six strategic bombers deep into the Pacific Ocean as part of a November 2015 exercise.

The US, which is concerned about the region's balance of power shifting towards China, has taken steps to demonstrate their "freedom of navigation" in the South China Sea. These steps have included patrolling the disputed islands with guided-missile destroyers, stationing the USS Ronald Reagan in Japan, and flying bombers near reefs. 

Thus far, China has responded to the patrols by filing complaints, condemning the US actions as "provocation"—but going ahead with their efforts nonetheless.

US allies in the region have increased their military spending in an attempt to counter China's strategic inroads in the region. Japan signed a controversial bill to expand the role of their military, and Taiwan agreed to buy $1.8 billion in arms from the US.

SEE ALSO: Stratfor has 11 chilling predictions for what the world will look like in 10 years

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: China has been upgrading its military and is now stronger than ever

China on Wednesday landed two test flights on an island it has built in the South China Sea, four days after it angered Vietnam with a landing on the same runway in the disputed territory, the Xinhua state news agency said.

The two flights are likely to spark further condemnation from Vietnam, which launched a formal diplomatic protest over the weekend, and the Philippines, which said it was planning to do the same.

Both countries have claims to the area that overlap with that of China, which claims almost the whole of the South China Sea.

Xinhua said the two planes landed on an artificial island in the Spratly Islands on Wednesday morning.

"The successful test flights proved that the airport has the capacity to ensure the safe operation of large civilian aircraft," Xinhua said, adding that the airport would facilitate the transport of supplies, personnel and medical aid.

Xinhua did not give any more detail about what type of aircraft had landed.

The runway at the Fiery Cross Reef is 3,000 meters (10,000 feet) long and is one of three China has been building for more than a year by dredging sand up onto reefs and atolls in the Spratly archipelago.

On Saturday, China landed a civilian plane on the same runway in the Spratlys in its first test, which was also the first time it had used a runway in the area.

The United States has criticized China's construction of the islands and worries that it plans to use them for military purposes, even though China says it has no hostile intent.

The United States said after the first landing it was concerned that the flight had exacerbated tension.

The runways would be long enough to handle long-range bombers and transport aircraft as well as China's best jet fighters, giving it a presence deep in the maritime heart of Southeast Asia that it has lacked until now.

More than $5 trillion of world trade is shipped through the South China Sea every year. Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines and Taiwan have rival claims.

SEE ALSO: Here’s a video of the F-35B showing off one of its most valuable features

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: China has been upgrading its military and is now stronger than ever

Scientists in Vietnam are set to embark upon the largest mass identification project in history, using DNA analysis techniques developed in Germany to determine the identities of millions of people who died during the Vietnam War.

Though it is now more than four decades since hostilities ended, remains of those who lost their lives on the battlefield continue to turn up across the country, yet most of these have decomposed to such an extent that identification is not possible.

In an attempt to resolve this ongoing tragedy, the Vietnamese government has recruited German biotechnology firm Bioglobe to oversee a large-scale DNA profiling project, which is now ready to be rolled out.

Sequencing DNA from the dead

The first stage of the operation will being next month, when a group of Vietnamese scientists will travel to Hamburg to receive training on how to use special DNA analysis kits developed by another German firm called Qiagen.

This technique has been specially designed to meet the particular challenges of working with bones that have remained buried for over 40 years in the humid Vietnamese climate.

Under such conditions, DNA tends to decompose very rapidly, which makes it very difficult to obtain sufficient samples to create a profile of the individuals to whom these bones belonged, Nature reports.

The new approach will involve chemically breaking down the cells in bones in order to extract their genetic material. This will then be amplified using specialized enzymes to generate a sufficient amount needed to read the sequences and create a genetic profile.

At the same time, researchers hope to collect DNA samples from thousands of surviving Vietnamese civilians, enabling them to create a national genetic reference bank. Using this, they should be able to finally determine the identities of those corpses for which DNA profiles are obtained.

Millions of Vietnamese left unidentified

The Vietnam war raged from 1954 to 1975, and saw the Communist-backed North Vietnamese Army and National Liberation Front (or Viet Cong) take on the forces of the South Vietnam government and the U.S.A.

Estimates for the number of Vietnamese civilians and soldiers killed during the conflict are highly ambiguous, ranging from 1-3 million, although some reports suggest that the number could be as high as 3.8 million.

A major reason for this confusion lies in the fact that so many of those who died on the battlefield have not been identified. While only one U.S. soldier killed in the conflict remained unidentified at the end of the war, the vast majority of Vietnamese casualties have still not been formally confirmed or named.

However, the team behind the forthcoming project – which includes experts who helped to identify more than 20,000 victims of the Bosnian War – hopes to DNA profile around 1.4 million unidentified specimens by 2020.

READ NEXT: Experts just released a rough guide for advising parents about whether they should sequence their kids' DNA

SEE ALSO: Florida police used a smidgen of DNA to try to fully reconstruct an alleged criminal's face

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The US navy sent an underwater recovery team to search for the remains of aviators lost in the Vietnam war

Globally, equity investors faced a number of uncertainties in 2015 as the anticipation of rising US interest rates, weak commodity prices and a growth slowdown in China weighed on sentiment.

These headwinds were arguably stronger for emerging markets overall, albeit more damaging to some markets than others.

Here, Carlos Hardenberg, senior vice president and director of frontier markets strategies, explores investment opportunities we’re spotting in frontier markets (the less-developed subset of the emerging market universe) with an eye on a few countries we think could best weather the investment climate ahead.

When talking about frontier markets, the first question many people have is how to classify them. One of the more interesting methods of defining a frontier market that I once read was the absence of a Starbucks, the popular coffee chain, in said country—though I’m not sure I’d necessarily agree with that assessment!

Benchmarks such as the MSCI Frontier Markets Index can provide a guide, wherein the inclusion of and weighting to specific countries is based on economic development, size, liquidity and market accessibility. At Templeton Emerging Markets Group, we don’t adhere to the constraints of any particular benchmark.

We view frontier markets more broadly as newer or younger markets in an earlier stage of economic development than larger emerging markets, generally with higher growth rates and a lesser degree of foreign investment and investment research coverage. Frontier markets are located throughout Asia, Africa, Europe and South America.

Investor Caution Dominates 2015

In times of heightened investor caution or uncertainty, the perceived risk of emerging markets overall as an asset class—and frontier markets in particular as a subset—can lead to periods of underperformance versus developed markets. That is something we witnessed in 2015.

However, 2015’s market environment highlights to us the importance of taking a bottom-up approach, looking at individual countries and individual companies in them with a critical eye. You can’t paint all emerging markets—or all companies within them—with the same broad brushstroke.

For example, some of the world’s best-performing markets in 2015 may come as a surprise to some people—one being Venezuela, which returned more than 200% in 2015, as well as Argentina, which returned more than 50%.

Both countries have been dealing with difficult economic and political environments—yet, there are companies located in them that have been able to prosper. We could point to several other frontier markets across the globe that have outperformed in 2015 despite a challenging environment for emerging markets overall as an asset class.

We regard challenging market environments as opportunities, using downturns to pick up stocks that we deem attractive but unfairly punished. While many investors aren’t investing in frontier markets, we also believe that could change in time. It’s our view that increased familiarity with companies based in these markets among international investors could feed higher valuations.

Frontier markets represent exciting long-term investment opportunities for our team. We see favorable fundamentals including strong economic growth, abundant natural and human resources, favorable demographic profiles, the potential for rapid technological progress, and potential benefits from improving infrastructure and improving standards of governance.

We believe the opportunity is magnified by market valuations for frontier corporations that often stand below those of their peers in more developed markets. We would note in this regard that recent market fluctuations have increased the gap between the valuation of frontier markets and those of emerging and developed markets, as measured by the relevant MSCI indexes.

Additionally, many frontier markets have significant domestic drivers that can reduce their correlation with their emerging and developed market counterparts and provide potential diversification for investors. We’d like to highlight a few frontier markets that we are particularly excited about right now.

Vietnam

We have been investing in Vietnam for many years, but it’s a market that many investors are just now casting an eye on. Nearly a decade ago, we came to the conclusion that Vietnam presented a unique investment opportunity within the frontier space because it was under-owned and under-researched; at that time, there was virtually no English-language research on Vietnamese companies.

Vietnam seemed largely ignored compared to its neighbors in the region, and there was almost no foreign company ownership either. We spent a lot of time traveling throughout the country, meeting local managers and getting to know the business and political environment before we decided to open an office there.

Vietnam operates with a one-party political system, with enormous state control and ownership similar to China. However, we noticed that the mindset of the people we encountered was overwhelmingly pro-business and pro-capital.

When we started investing in Vietnam in 2008, the economy was facing some challenges, including a chronic current account deficit. Although Vietnam possessed oil and natural gas, it couldn’t be refined domestically, so the government needed to send it out and buy back the end products (the country has been working to change this in recent years with the construction of domestic refineries).

As we learned more about the investment environment in Vietnam, we also noticed a rapid increase in the level of foreign direct investment, and the quality of it was very high—brands known around the world were setting up manufacturing operations in Vietnam and hiring tens of thousands of people.

Today there is a long list of international companies that manufacture goods including electronics, textiles and furniture in Vietnam. We expect more multinational companies in a number of industries could set up shop in Vietnam, taking advantage of its low-cost labor and well-educated workforce.

In addition, the business owners and managers we have spoken to over the years have conveyed that it was relatively easy to do business in the country compared with some others in the region. The World Bank’s report on the ease of doing business ranks Vietnam 90th among 189 countries surveyed in 2016, an improvement from 99th in 2013 and higher than India, for example, ranking 130th.

Vietnam has a number of positives in its favor, in our view. Gross domestic product (GDP) growth has been strong, forecast at 6.5% in 2015. Vietnam has many seaports and possesses one of the most important trade routes on the planet, with access to neighboring China’s very large consumer market.

Vietnam has been building its export market and also a large domestic consumer market. Tapping into the domestic consumer market is a theme we’ve been exploring for potential investment opportunities. One example is the dairy industry, which has been a rural and unorganized market in Vietnam.

Typically people would purchase their milk from a neighbor or nearby farmer with a cow, not at a supermarket. In a short time span, we’ve seen a regulatory framework developed, and industrial producers have come into the market and have built brands with more formal distribution channels.

In addition to a recent trade agreement inked with the European Union, we think Vietnam could see significant benefits from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), as the reduction or elimination of tariffs could be a boon to its export market, particularly to large-destination markets that look to be part of the TPP—namely the United States and Japan. Vietnam has a vibrant but underutilized fishing industry, and more of its seafood could land on plates of diners in these countries and others.

While foreign ownership has been rising, Vietnam’s government doesn’t want to lose control of its assets, so we expect foreign ownership limits will remain a subject of debate. Nevertheless, we think Vietnam is a market that should continue to attract investor interest in the coming years.

Bangladesh

Elsewhere in Asia, Bangladesh has a significant domestic market with a population of more than 169 million.⁶ Many people may remember when Bangladesh’s formidable textile industry made headlines in 2013, after an eight-story building in the Rana Plaza complex collapsed in a fire.

Virtually all the big global textile companies were producing in Bangladesh—which is still the case today. The fire was a terrible tragedy, but it brought attention to the need for better regulation and oversight, including safety rules for producers.

There is still work to be done, but we are seeing some progress and improvements being made. Bangladesh has developed a strong niche, one where it is world-class. In textile production, Bangladesh is extremely efficient, with the knowledge and skills to integrate into the global trading network.

And, the industry has fairly high barriers to entry, so we expect Bangladesh to retain its leadership position. We have been investing in the country and continue to look for compelling opportunities there, not only in the textile area but in other industries that can take advantage of the growth taking place there.

Nigeria (and Across Africa) 

With the exception of South Africa, all of the countries on the African continent are considered to be frontier markets. The largest market by population is Nigeria, which is an important market for us in terms of the range of potential opportunities.

There’s no question that Nigeria has faced a number of challenges, with virtually no power grid and poor infrastructure. The power production of the entire country is probably similar to one street in New York City. However, the ability of the Nigerian people to operate under the most difficult circumstances is astonishing.

What has really surprised me in my travels there is how people not only in Nigeria but throughout Africa have been embracing mobile telecommunication and the Internet. Many people with hardly any food or a roof over their heads have smartphones and use mobile payments for various goods and services.

Mobile banking is quite sophisticated in Africa due to the unavailability of physical banks or ATMs to a vast population. Traveling in Africa (whether in Nigeria, the Ivory Coast, Senegal, Ethiopia or Kenya) one can’t help but notice the Chinese influence on the continent, building roads, ports, airports and tunnels, and becoming local partners with African businesses.

While Africa’s commodities are of interest to the Chinese, many are staying in Africa and setting up their own retail businesses there. It’s a symbiotic relationship.

The fall in commodity prices in the past couple of years has been a challenge for African countries, particularly those dependent on oil revenue. However, it could also be viewed as an opportunity for these countries to reform and diversify their economies.

It forces governments to become more disciplined, to improve income collections and find ways to expand the economy and its coffers through more diverse ventures, not only through the sale of a single commodity. We are seeing a number of large multinational companies establish a presence in Africa for the first time—particularly in countries with improving infrastructure and ease of doing business—to access its large, vibrant and youthful populations.

We think Africa is probably the most exciting story of the future when talking about frontier markets, but investors may need to be patient and to understand some of the unique aspects of doing business there as well as the risks.

Divergences—and Debt

These are just a few of the countries we’re exploring as we look ahead to 2016. We expect 2016 is likely to be another year marked by market divergences—and also, likely global monetary policy divergences.

We would note that while investors may remain a bit risk-adverse in early 2016 amid potentially rising interest rates in the United States, other central banks—including those in China, Japan and Europe—are in easing mode and providing market liquidity.

Some emerging and frontier markets will weather a potential US rate hike better than others, but we don’t expect it to diminish our case for investing in them. We would note that one thing many frontier markets have in their favor is low levels of debt both in the private and public sectors, something that should help them navigate potential shocks in the year ahead.

The comments, opinions and analyses presented herein are for informational purposes only and should not be considered individual investment advice or recommendations to invest in any security or to adopt any investment strategy. Because market and economic conditions are subject to rapid change, comments, opinions and analyses are rendered as of the date of the posting and may change without notice. The material is not intended as a complete analysis of every material fact regarding any country, region, market, industry, investment or strategy.

SEE ALSO: Everything the world's central banks are doing in one big map

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: A law professor tricked his students into lying, which shows why you should never talk to police

China’s Haiyang Shiyou 981 oil rig is reportedly once again operating in waters contested by Vietnam.  The rig’s return creates a number of risks for investors operating in Vietnam and the region more broadly.

On January 19^th, the government of Vietnam announced that a Chinese oilrig – the Haiyang Shiyou 981– had moved into contested waters in the South China Sea. Vietnamese officials filed an official protest against the action and demanded that China refrain from drilling in the area.

The HS981 was previously the focal point of a Sino-Vietnamese crisis in 2014 when the rig was moved into disputed territory off the coast of Vietnam. The spat led to massive anti-Chinese protests and violence within Vietnam, which in turn led to significant losses for several businesses operating within the area.

As such, the HS981’s return to contested waters has generated significant regional concern, particularly given its inauspicious timing, coming days after the anniversary of the Sino-Vietnamese Battle of the Paracel Islands and days before Vietnam’s 12^th Party Congress.

There are three key risks for investors raised by the recent HS981 incident:

Risk 1: Unrest – 2014 Redux?

The HS981 has been the focus of controversy in the past. In 2014, the Chinese moved the HS981 into what Vietnam considers to be its territorial waters and brought with it a large escort. The resulting dispute led to Vietnamese and Chinese ships harassing and ramming one another repeatedly.

In Vietnam, widespread anti-Chinese demonstrations became violent, targeting Chinese-speaking individuals and businesses displaying Hanzi (and, in some cases, Hangul and Kanji). This led to the death of several foreign workers, the destruction of numerous businesses, and the eventual evacuation of Chinese workers from Vietnam.

Investors should be aware that the current HS981 incident will likely result in anti-Chinese demonstrations, and violence or damage to Chinese businesses is a distinct possibility. Nevertheless, Vietnam is unlikely to see a repeat of the massive protests of 2014.

Vietnamese nationalists regularly take advantage of these types of incidents to demonstrate, and recently held minor protests during the anniversary of a 1974 maritime battle between Vietnam and China.  Protests could take place in any of the cities outlined in Figure 1 (above), and are particularly likely to occur near businesses displaying Northeast Asian characters (Hanzi, Hangul, or Kanji).

Still, the Vietnamese government will be prioritizing security and stability during the ongoing party congress (particularly in the capital), and security forces will likely be on high alert to prevent a repeat of the 2014 violence.  The current dispute has not escalated as the 2014 incident did, and the rig is operating in a location much further away both from the Vietnamese coast and the mutually-contested Paracel Islands than in 2014. The recent dispute is therefore less likely to galvanize the same massive nationalist sentiment as in 2014.

Risk 2: Dispute escalation

While the 2014 HS981 incident led to Vietnamese and Chinese ships ramming and firing water cannons at one another, the ongoing intergovernmental dispute over HS981 is unlikely to escalate to the same extent. So far, Vietnam has limited its response to a diplomatic protest.

The ongoing Party Congress will make it difficult for Vietnam to respond more forcefully; the leadership is wholly preoccupied with determining succession and is unlikely to adopt a highly confrontational approach that might trigger a crisis.

China similarly seems uninterested in a public confrontation, having removed its online notice of the rig’s position.  Additionally, as mentioned above, the current location of the HS981 is far less provocative than in 2014.

Still, investors should monitor further developments closely. In the unlikely event that the current intergovernmental dispute escalates further, it could lead to various formal (or informal) trade sanctions between the two states and broader and more violent nationalist protests – both in Vietnam and China.

Risk 3: Strategic mistrust in Sino-Vietnamese relations

Although the immediate escalation of the HS981 dispute is unlikely, there is a significant risk that the dispute will contribute to growing rivalry and distrust between the two governments.  Over the past decade, China has grown more assertive with regard to its territorial disputes in the South China Sea and has bolstered its naval capabilities, alarming rival claimants in the region including Vietnam.

China’s more assertive behavior is convincing political elites in Vietnam (and throughout the region more broadly) that China is bent on dominating the South China Sea, coercively if necessary, and will not prove to be a passive or trustworthy neighbor. The HS981’s redeployment will seem to be simply the latest manifestation of Chinese assertiveness, particularly given the fact that it follows closely on the heels of Vietnam’s denunciation of Chinese aerial activity in the South China Sea.

While these incidents are unlikely to decisively influence the ongoing Vietnamese Party Congress (which will be dominated by factional politics), they are likely to affect subsequent foreign policy decision-making by Vietnamese leaders.  As such, investors can expect Sino-Vietnamese relations to continue to slowly deteriorate in the coming years.

Rising geopolitical tensions between China and Vietnam are likely to create an unstable, risk-prone environment for investors in the region.  An atmosphere of mistrust will only increase the chances that future disputes could lead to nationalist unrest, boycotts, sanctions, and even intergovernmental conflict.

Overall, while the current dispute is unlikely to produce massive nationalist unrest on the scale of the 2014 demonstrations, it will contribute to the narrative of a dangerous, revisionist China among Vietnam’s leadership and raise the prospects of long-term geopolitical instability between the two states.

SEE ALSO: Vietnam accuses China of violating its sovereignty by landing a plane on contested part of the South China Sea

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Bill Nye has a great response to Trump's outrageous statements about climate change

Charles “Chuck” Mawhinney was one of the most lethal snipers of the Vietnam War with 103 confirmed kills. In a particularly daring engagement, Mawhinney stopped a Viet Cong assault by hitting 16 headshots in 30 seconds at night in bad weather.

“Chuck was extremely aggressive,” retired Master Gunnery Sgt. Mark Limpic, Mawhinney’s squad leader, later told LA Times. “He could run a half-mile, stand straight up and shoot offhand and drop somebody at 700 yards.”

Mawhinney was operating out of a base near Da Nang in what the U.S. military called Arizona Territory.

A large North Vietnamese Army force was spotted moving its way south towards the U.S. base, but a monsoon shut down air support. So Mawhinney volunteered to cover a river crossing where the force was expected to march.

Mawhinney left his sniper rifle at the base and moved forward with an M14 semiautomatic rifle and a Starlight scope, an early night vision device.

The sniper and his spotter positioned themselves overlooking the shallowest river crossing. A few hours later, the NVA appeared.

A single scout approached the river first, but Mawhinney waited. When the rest of the NVA began to cross the river, Mawhinney kept waiting. It wasn’t until the men were deep into the river that Mawhinney began firing.

He engaged the enemy at ranges from 25 to 75 meters, nailing one man after the other through the head. As he describes it, in 30 seconds “I shot 16 times, 16 went down the river.”

The two Marines then hastily fell back as the NVA tried to hit them with small arms and machine gun fire.

See Mawhinney and another Marine sniper describe the engagement in the video below:

SEE ALSO: 13 legends of the US Coast Guard

Join the conversation about this story »

In October 1965, Commander Clarence W. Stoddard, Jr. of the USS Midway carried a special bomb to North Vietnam to celebrate the six millionth pound of ordnance dropped on the Communist country: a ceramic toilet.

The event was recounted on MidwaySailor.com:

The bombing was a Dixie Station strike from South Vietnam going to the [Mekong] Delta. Among the weapons on Stoddard’s ordnance list was one code named “Sani-Flush.”

Sani-flush was a damaged toilet, which was going to be thrown overboard. One of the Midway‘s plane captains rescued it and the ordnance crew made a rack, tailfins, and nose fuse for it. The checkers maintained a position to block the view of the air boss and the captain while the aircraft was taxiing forward.

The toilet ordnance was dropped in a dive with Stoddard’s wingman, Lt. Cmdr. Robin Bacon, flying tight wing position to film the drop. When it came off, it turned hole to the wind and almost struck his airplane, and whistled all the way down.

According to Clint Johnson, now a retired U.S. Navy Captain, just as Stoddard’s A-1 Skyraider was being shot off, they received a message from the bridge: “What the hell was on 572’s right wing?”

“There were a lot of jokes with air intelligence about germ warfare,” Johnson said. “I wish that we had saved the movie film. Commander Stoddard was later killed while flying 572 in October 1966. He was hit by three SAMs over Vinh.”

This isn’t the first example of unconventional warfare from U.S. Navy aviators. In August 1952, AD-4 Skyraiders from the aircraft carrier USS Princeton dropped a 1,000-pound bomb with a kitchen sink attached to it.

“We dropped everything on them (the North Koreans) but a kitchen sink.” Their squadron’s executive officer, Lt. Cmdr. M.K. Dennis, told the press, before showing them a bomb with a kitchen sink attached.

The admiral was not okay with this, but caved to pressure from American press. The U.S. dropped the kitchen sink on Pyongyang that same month.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Ashton Kutcher just made a surprise appearance on Ian Bremmer's weekly digital video series