*
The JIN is an oversized “Battling Bots” robot with a hook jutting out from the nose, to be “…driven in front of a military convoy (and controlled by)…a remote-control console that troops can use from a safe distance, directing it like a radio-controlled car. A metal boom that extends from the vehicle's chassis emits high-powered electric pulses…”, as one general described it, setting off the IED's blasting cap from a distance. According to reports it disable
d 90% of the practice IEDs on the Yuma testing grounds by LIPC, laser-induced plasma channel technology. A one billionth of 1 millionth of a second long laser burst heated a narrow corridor of air into a plasma, which could transmit an electrical charge as if it were a “virtual wire”. That charge would then set off the detonator on an IED. Sounds great, doesn’t it? So what went wrong? Why did the most informed investors, 50 spooks from In-Q-Tel, dump the stock? Why, with all those fabulous test results, did the DoD never order any combat units? Have you figured it out yet?
*
The issue is not what the IED Zapper can do, the issue is what it doesn’t do. It doesn’t find IEDs. It doesn’t disable any IEDs unless it targets them.
But the problem with IEDs in Iraq is not blowing them up harmlessly but spotting them before they go off. And when a population is not inclined to warn you that the third car parked on the right or the second pile of trash on the left hides an IED, having a Buck Rogers hi-tech device you have to stop to deploy, and then guide by remote control to approach the suspected bomb is worse then useless. Because in Iraq, stopping a convoy or even slowing one down is like walking through a dog kennel with a ham hock hanging around your neck.
*
I suspect what the Pentagon really wanted was a golf cart that would roll down the highway or street in front of one of those long lonely supply convoys that
wend their way from the gulf to Bagdad and beyond, and disarm any IEDs as they pass, as if by magic, sort of like the shield the Martians used in “War Of The Worlds”, or “Independence Day”. But those are just make-believe, the fantasies of children and screenwriters and Neo-Cons desperate to find a solution to the mess they created in Iraq. And what we need when thinking about Iraq is not less reality, but more.
*
d 90% of the practice IEDs on the Yuma testing grounds by LIPC, laser-induced plasma channel technology. A one billionth of 1 millionth of a second long laser burst heated a narrow corridor of air into a plasma, which could transmit an electrical charge as if it were a “virtual wire”. That charge would then set off the detonator on an IED. Sounds great, doesn’t it? So what went wrong? Why did the most informed investors, 50 spooks from In-Q-Tel, dump the stock? Why, with all those fabulous test results, did the DoD never order any combat units? Have you figured it out yet?*
The issue is not what the IED Zapper can do, the issue is what it doesn’t do. It doesn’t find IEDs. It doesn’t disable any IEDs unless it targets them.
But the problem with IEDs in Iraq is not blowing them up harmlessly but spotting them before they go off. And when a population is not inclined to warn you that the third car parked on the right or the second pile of trash on the left hides an IED, having a Buck Rogers hi-tech device you have to stop to deploy, and then guide by remote control to approach the suspected bomb is worse then useless. Because in Iraq, stopping a convoy or even slowing one down is like walking through a dog kennel with a ham hock hanging around your neck.*
I suspect what the Pentagon really wanted was a golf cart that would roll down the highway or street in front of one of those long lonely supply convoys that
wend their way from the gulf to Bagdad and beyond, and disarm any IEDs as they pass, as if by magic, sort of like the shield the Martians used in “War Of The Worlds”, or “Independence Day”. But those are just make-believe, the fantasies of children and screenwriters and Neo-Cons desperate to find a solution to the mess they created in Iraq. And what we need when thinking about Iraq is not less reality, but more.*
Ionatron figured they could build 17 zappers a month for $200,000 each, but at that price the units would not be disposable, which they would really have to be since, when the Zapper set off an IED, the IED explosion would likely take out the Zapper. And besides the Army already owns a remotely controlled device that could destroy an IED, once it has been detected; for $1,500 a shot
you can buy an AT-4 one shot shoulder launched anti-tank rocket, more than powerful enough to take out an I.E.D. in a car or truck from 1,600 feet away, which is a hell of a lot farther away than the IED zapper can zap. So why are we spending $18 million of the taxpayers’ money to build the electronic equivalent of a big stick to poke IEDs with? Well, the answer is, we aren’t.*
When curious Ionatron investors started asking how the system actually worked and when the Pentagon was actually going to order some zappers, and when their investments might actually start to pay off, the company’s Executive VP Joseph C. Hayden, responded that “Ionatron has been asked to remove this inform
ation from the website by the U.S. Government…” And if any then thought about asking by phone or mail they were informed that “…we must give the responsible U.S. Government office at least 30 days notice prior to release of any information regarding contracts or LIPC technology.” In other words, don’t ask, don’t tell; the memo announcing this new policy by Ionatron was dated, April 1, 2005, April Fools day.*
By June of 2007 some investors gotten fed up enough to sue, charging in U.S. District Court in Arizona that;
“… the Company had concealed the fact their much-heralded vehicle was at best an improvisation of “off the shelf” platforms and components, incapable of meeti
ng U.S. Government specifications…As such, its purported efforts to demonstrate the vehicle as a prototype for a large order from the government would inevitably fail… (Regarding the March 24, 2006 resignation of Chairman Robert Howard): While defendant’s press release appeared to signal to investors that a transition…was underway, in reality the Company was grappling with…the failure of its “deployment-ready” technology. Worse, following his resignation but prior to defendants’ shocking disclosure, Howard had engaged in highly suspicious sales of over one million of his shares of Ionatron, for proceeds of $13.5 million, …(and furthermore) the price of Ionatron shares plunged more than 39.5% over the four subsequent trading days…”
*
I am tempted to add that, oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive. But I won’t. I will simply add that in tomorrow’s chapter we will zero in on Mr. Robert Howard, and ask some questions about how he got into the death ray business in the first place. After all, it’s a long way from dot matrix to death ray tricks.
- 30 -
ng U.S. Government specifications…As such, its purported efforts to demonstrate the vehicle as a prototype for a large order from the government would inevitably fail… (Regarding the March 24, 2006 resignation of Chairman Robert Howard): While defendant’s press release appeared to signal to investors that a transition…was underway, in reality the Company was grappling with…the failure of its “deployment-ready” technology. Worse, following his resignation but prior to defendants’ shocking disclosure, Howard had engaged in highly suspicious sales of over one million of his shares of Ionatron, for proceeds of $13.5 million, …(and furthermore) the price of Ionatron shares plunged more than 39.5% over the four subsequent trading days…”*
I am tempted to add that, oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive. But I won’t. I will simply add that in tomorrow’s chapter we will zero in on Mr. Robert Howard, and ask some questions about how he got into the death ray business in the first place. After all, it’s a long way from dot matrix to death ray tricks.
- 30 -
No comments:
Post a Comment