U.S., Canada forces conduct military exercises in Greenland in sub-zero temperatures
The exercises — called Operation Noble Defender — took place from Jan. 28 until Feb. 11 at Pituffik Space Base, which remains the U.S. military's northernmost installation, NORAD said in a news release.
Roughly 125 American and Canadian servicemembers were deployed for the operation, military officials said. The exercises included multiple NORAD fighter jets and helicopters, including F-16s, KC-135s, E-3s, CF-18s, C-150s and CH-149s. The Royal Danish Air Force was also on hand to offer search and rescue support.
Conditions were harsh during the operation. Local temperatures were consistently below 0 degrees Fahrenheit, and the coldest days reached minus 29 degrees F (-34 C), with a wind chill of minus 56 degrees F (-49 C), officials said. Maintenance crews and civil engineering airmen "operated tirelessly in these conditions to ensure aircrews were able to conduct flying missions," NORAD said.
🇨🇦 and 🇺🇸 assets from all three #NORAD Regions deployed to Pituffik Space Base, Greenland from Jan 28 to Feb 11 for #OperationNOBLEDEFENDER. Each OND strengthens and progresses NORAD's missions of aerospace warning, aerospace control, and maritime warning for North America. 📸… pic.twitter.com/ayMtUcIiKZ
— North American Aerospace Defense Command (@NORADCommand) February 25, 2025
The air defense operation in Greenland, done in conjunction with Denmark, started in 2018 and takes place at planned intervals.
"Over the last three weeks, our integrated American and Canadian NORAD teams have demonstrated the ability to operate at the highest level in one of the most austere environments in the world," Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Shemo, 41st AEG Commander, said in a statement.
The operation unfolded amid increased global scrutiny and military activity in the Arctic region. Last month, a combat air patrol of American and Canadian fighter jets was scrambled after multiple Russian warplanes were spotted in the Arctic. Several hours later, NORAD said it also scrambled two F-16 fighter jets from Alaska to Greenland in order to "forward posture NORAD presence in the Arctic." The command said that move was "not in response to any current threat."
President Trump has expressed his desire to bring Greenland under U.S. control. The location of Denmark's autonomous Arctic territory makes it strategic for both economic and defense purposes. But Greenland's leader and its residents have made it clear that their home is not for sale.
Russia's efforts to boost its military presence in the Arctic have gradually expanded, including two nuclear submarines unveiled by President Vladimir Putin. Russia has also tested hypersonic missiles, which are capable of evading American defenses, in the Arctic.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
18 hours ago
- New York Post
Why many women over age 52 have a higher risk of getting STIs
STIs are on the rise — but it's not just frat bros and free-lovers feeling the burn. While younger people still account for the majority of cases, studies show that some of the steepest spikes are happening in people 55 and up. Experts have offered several explanations for the surge, but research suggests there's a risk factor affecting many midlife and older women that has largely flown under the radar and could be playing a key role. Advertisement 4 More Americans are having sex in their senior years thanks to advancements in medicine. Monkey Business – More than a million American women hit menopause each year — and it's not just hot flashes and mood swings they're facing. The transition, which wraps up around age 52 on average, marks the end of reproductive years and is driven by a drop in estrogen as the ovaries slow hormone production. While vaginal dryness and loss of elasticity are well-known symptoms, research from Ohio State University (OSU) shows that menopause can also weaken the vaginal tissue itself, making it more prone to tearing. Advertisement That vulnerability comes down to changes at the cellular level. The vagina's surface is made up of multiple layers held together by key proteins like desmoglein-1 (DSG1) and desmocollin-1 (DSC1). 'These proteins strengthen the vaginal lining and restrict pathogen access to deeper tissue, reducing the risk of infection,' Dr. Thomas L. Cherpes, associate professor of otolaryngology at OSU, wrote in The Conversation. Advertisement 4 Menopause can bring a host of uncomfortable symptoms, including vaginal changes. – In their research, Cherpes and his colleagues found that postmenopausal women have significantly lower levels of DSG1 and DSC1 than women who haven't gone through the transition. To see how this might impact infection risk, the researchers removed the ovaries of mice in a lab to mimic estrogen loss in postmenopausal women. Compared to mice with intact ovaries, those without had far lower levels of DSG1 and DSC1 in their vaginal tissue. Advertisement The team also found that these mice were more vulnerable to infection with herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2), which causes genital herpes. They were less able to clear chlamydia infections from the lower genital tract as well. The findings help explain why postmenopausal women are more susceptible to STIs than their younger counterparts. Notably, when Cherpes and his colleagues applied estrogen cream to the mice without ovaries, it restored the vaginal lining's integrity and fully protected them from HSV-2 infection. 4 The vaginal tissue is more vulnerable to tearing after menopause, opening the door to infection. megaflopp – 'While additional research is needed, findings from our lab suggest that estrogen-containing compounds used to relieve vaginal irritation and other symptoms of genitourinary syndrome of menopause can also reduce susceptibility to STIs among older adults,' Cherpes wrote. Sex doesn't stop — and neither do the risks Americans might not like to talk about it, but older adults are still very much having sex. A 2018 survey found nearly 40% of people aged 65 to 80 are sexually active, and almost two-thirds remain interested in sex. Advertisement More recent AARP data shows that 26% of 60- to 69-year-olds and 17% of those 70 and older have sex weekly. 'Hormone-replacement therapy, vaginal lubricants and the approval of sildenafil (Viagra) and its relatives have extended people's sex lives,' Dr. Sandra Adamson Fryhofer told the American Medical Association. But while more people are living longer and staying sexually active, more are also paying the price. 4 Sex-crazed seniors are fueling a major spike in STIs nationwide. David – Advertisement 'Rates are highest in the under 25 age group, which accounts for about 50% of STIs, but we're definitely seeing a rise in infections in the older population, particularly in people over 65,' Dr. Angelina Gangestad said in an interview with University Hospitals. Between 2010 and 2023, the number of Americans over 65 diagnosed with chlamydia, gonorrhea or syphilis rose by roughly three-, five- and sevenfold, respectively, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Research also suggests women over 50 are at greater risk for HIV than their younger peers. Advertisement In addition to the effects of menopause, experts say several other factors are likely fueling the rise. Condom use is significantly lower among older adults compared to younger people. One study found that just 3% of Americans aged 60 and older have used a condom in the past year. Older adults also tend to have less knowledge about STIs, including how they spread, what symptoms look like and how to prevent them. Advertisement To make matters worse, research suggests that many doctors don't ask older patients about their sex lives — and seniors aren't exactly jumping to bring it up with their family or friends, either. 'No one wants to think about grandma doing this,' Matthew Lee Smith, an associate professor at the Texas A&M School of Public Health, told NBC News. 'You certainly aren't going to ask grandma if she was wearing condoms — and that's part of the problem, because every individual regardless of age has the right to intimacy.'
Scientific American
a day ago
- Scientific American
Strong Support for NASA and Project Artemis Will Advance the U.S.
During President Trump's first term in office, he signed Space Policy Directive 1, signaling the administration's desire to bring American astronauts back to the moon. This directive, and similar ones, later became Project Artemis, the lunar campaign with broader ambition to get the U.S. on Mars. But will we get to the moon, not to mention Mars? As the space race against China barrels forward, the White House first proposed $6 billion in total cuts to NASA funding, a roughly 24 percent reduction that experts said would be the largest single-year cut to agency funding in history. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. But in the aftermath of President Trump signing the ' One Big Beautiful Bill,' which did reintegrate certain funds for Project Artemis, Congressional appropriations committees have continued to push back against the administration's myriad cuts to NASA, which for the space agency's science unit alone was a 47 percent reduction to approximately $3.9 billion. The Senate committee's bill kept NASA science funding, integral to the support of Artemis and its mission, roughly at their current levels, while the House draft halved the cuts proposed by the White House. The Senate appropriations committee also firmly rejected the president's original proposal to terminate Project Artemis's Space Launch System and Orion Spacecraft after the conclusion of the Artemis III mission. This conflict and dizzying back and forth regarding America's moonshot project suggests a question: Are we committed to Artemis and the broader goal of understanding space? Or to put it another way: Do we want to win this new race to the moon? The current administration owes us an answer. There's more than just a soft-power victory over China's taikonauts at stake. This endeavor is about cementing the U.S. as a technological superpower, a center for understanding space and our solar system, and in due course, setting us up to be the first to live and work on the moon. Americans support this goal. A recent CBS News poll shows broad support for sending astronauts back to the moon. But it will be hard for the administration to reconcile its anti-government spending message with a full-throated support of Artemis and related missions. This isn't the first time the U.S. has faced such a debate. In the winter of 1967, Senator Clinton P. Anderson and his space committee initiated an inquiry into the disastrous Apollo 1 fire that killed three American astronauts. Letters flooded into Congress. Concerned citizens across the country offered their theories about the cause of the conflagration. But others asked a more poignant question that was at the center of national debate: Why are we going to the moon in the first place? 'I want to say here and now that I think the moon project is the most terrible waste of national funds that I can imagine,' wrote James P. Smith of Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y. in a letter housed at the Legislative Archives in Washington D.C. 'Let [the Russians] go to the moon and let us use our money to end the war in Vietnam and raise our standards of living.' Others pressed their representatives to not give up their support of the Apollo program. Julius H. Cooper, Jr., of Delmar, Md., said in his letter to Anderson's committee: 'Should a manned landing by the Soviets occur on the moon first make no mistake about it the political and scientific repercussions will be tremendous.' Today's America, in many ways, is the same. Social discord, financial struggles, and conflicts abroad continue to consume our country's time, energy and resources. But the value of Project Artemis goes beyond the scientific discoveries and technological advancements that await. The success of this new moonshot will at the very least prevent space dominance from adversaries, including Russia and China, which have partnered together on their own International Lunar Research Station. Both countries have declined to sign onto the Artemis Accords, a worrying sign that these nations don't agree with our approach to the 'peaceful' exploration and use of space. To be clear, this Artemis isn't just a jobs program. Although the work created by these missions will bring a positive economic impact, the reality is that humankind's future is among the stars. Our government should be the one to orchestrate the path there while inspiring the next generation to continue exploring the depths of space. But instead of leaning into the benefits of Project Artemis, the administration is creating hurdles for the moon bound mission. To start, NASA has no permanent leadership. The administration withdrew its nomination of tech billionaire and civilian astronaut Jared Isaacman to lead the space agency, so despite the recent appointment of Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy as interim administrator, NASA will continue for months without a leader pushing Project Artemis forward. And despite Duffy's assurance that Artemis is a critical mission, the message runs hollow if word from the Oval Office doesn't match. Again, the president initially called for the end of the program's Space Launch System and Orion crew capsule following the Artemis III mission for more cost-effective commercial systems. Trump's initial budget also called for the termination of the Gateway station, the planned lunar outpost and critical component of Project Artemis's infrastructure. This would effectively kill the program that President Trump championed with his initial space policy directive. Congress did ultimately provide funding for additional Artemis missions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but it remains to be seen whether that reflects a sustained change in the administration's commitment. The success of Artemis requires extended support, not preemptively phasing out critical mission components or funding for NASA's incredibly valuable science missions. Artemis and NASA's science programs contribute an extraordinary amount toward America's technological might, so funding shouldn't be framed as an 'either/or' proposition. Now is the time to brush away uncertainty and put Artemis on a track forward. As critics have pointed out, it is unclear whether NASA has a tangible plan for getting to the moon and back. The lunar landing system is still in the concept stage. This is a chance for the president to show leadership by stepping in and pushing his government to achieve a monumental task, one that he might compare to the success of Operation Warp Speed during his first term. The administration needs to move fast and nominate a leader for NASA who will prioritize Artemis and its core mission. It needs to walk back plans to slim down government that are causing 2,000 senior officials to leave NASA at a time when leadership matters more than ever before. In short, Project Artemis requires financial certainty. The success of the program will come from the willingness of this administration to fully commit to it. In Air & Space magazine's June/July 1989 issue commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing, author Andy Chaikin opined on why America hadn't yet gone back. 'One of the lessons of Apollo is that the decision to 'go someplace' can't come from anyone in NASA, or from moon advocates, or from the Mars advocates,' he wrote. 'It's got to come from the top.' If President Trump supports this moonshot, Americans deserve a clear justification straight from the Oval Office. Americans need to buy into the message from the top, whether it's one of technological or political superiority, a desire to discover the unknown, or something else. Ultimately, Senator Anderson's 1967 space committee recommended that the Apollo program continue, with the caveat that improvements needed to be made. Today, boxes of letters sent into the Apollo 1 investigatory committee sit in the Center for Legislative Archives in Washington, D.C., serving as a time capsule of one of America's most contentious debates. Inside one of these boxes there's a handwritten letter from a woman named Ruth B. Harkness, of Wataga, Ill., inquiring about the U.S.'s determination to get to the moon. It distills down the very question we're struggling with now. 'May I ask, Why?' she wrote. Tell us, Mr. President.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
That substance in the water of Great Slave Lake is likely just ash, says DFO
A substance spotted in the water of Great Slave Lake on Thursday is likely "a collection of ash," said Fisheries and Oceans Canada. An "unknown, black substance" near Mosher Island was reported to the Canadian Coast Guard's Arctic Region Marine Environmental and Hazards Response (MEHR) team Thursday morning. MEHR collected samples and submitted them for testing. Based on the evidence, they've confirmed that the curvy black line in the water is ash, likely from a burn barrel "or something of that nature," wrote Jeremy Hennessy, a public affairs officer for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, in an email. Brian Fidler lives next to Yellowknife Bay and noticed the streak in the water when he was looking out his window. Fidler has lived in Yellowknife for almost five years and said he's never seen anything like it before. "It was a beautiful morning. The water was flat, calm," he said. "I noticed the boats in the little bay there and this weird line that came out seemed to trail from the Yellowknife River direction and kind of curl around." Fidler said it looked like the substance was floating towards Jolliffe Island. While the substance didn't give off the "rainbow kind of fuel" that oil spills are typically characterized with, Fidler said he was still concerned because he didn't know what the slick was. "If more is gonna be coming out into the lake, I don't want to see that. I don't wanna put my boat through it," he said. "If it is chemical or petroleum based, it's not good for the environment. It's not good for our lake." An on-water assessment by MEHR indicated that the substance is not oil-based. There are no impacts to Yellowknife's drinking water and it "is not believed to pose any danger to the public or to wildlife in the area," Hennessy wrote.
