Another Boring Story about Bombs
Simultaneous car bombs kill 62 in Iraq (link to the good Dr. Attaturk then to the jerks at CNN)
Remember the guy who said that nobody reads stories about car bombings? Even he had only read the ones he wrote?
So maybe he could juice up his story and make it more interesting. Maybe he could ask this question: We have technology that can stop car bombs. Why aren't we using it? We know you used it to protect Paul Bremmer, why can't you use it for all the troops?
Please explain why it wasn't used to the parents of the dead soldiers in the most recent IED.
Kilgore Trout and the power of Great Ideas
I just read a Kilgore Trout type SF book about Nano technology (Title? Nano. How clever!) I call these books Kilgore Trout books (Vonnegut created the character) because like Kilgore’s books, they are often poorly written, but contain interesting ideas to ponder. The book mentioned a 30 Billion dollar experimental plane. I thought, "They will spend billions to make one sexy war toy, to fight the last cool war. But right now Russian isn’t a huge threat, why aren't the big brains tasked to do something about a simple tactic that is killing people every god damn day in Iraq.? Not enough fun? Not enough funding?
It’s not a moon shot, it’s a new product launch
We don't need a Manhattan project. We don't need an Apollo project. We just need some of the smart guys and manufacturing dudes who launch a new cell phone every 2 months! Get your big brained boffins in a room and say, "These are the IEDs. These are how they are made. This is how they are triggered. How can we stop them? If we have to have multiple methods to stop them then what are they?"
The White House pretends to love private industry (but they really just love THEIR PRIVATE industry.) Why not go to Phillips or Nokia and say, "I need you to make 150,000 IED detection devices. Make me scramblers, detectors, trackers." Then go to the guys who have all the key hole satellites and say. "Today I need you to figure out how to track back to the sources these bombs. These are the dates and times. Analyze back several hours and then forward several hours and report back.”
Next go to the guys who make bioengineered corn and say, “I need a water soluble tracking device in these drinks. I want these guys to glow in wavelengths only we can see.” Then you can start tracking the next round of IEDs.
The odds are that all of these things (or variations on these) have been thought of and maybe even done. And it's probably classified. But what if they aren't doing these kinds of things? What does that say about Donald Rumsfeld and Cheney? If we are going to execute a war then figure out how to do it better! What a failure of leadership and vision.
Remember, we defeated the Borg
The insurgents are like the Borg. They learn, adapt. They are not stupid. We need to learn and adapt too. Again, maybe the government is already doing this. I'll go over to Opt. Truth and ask. The projects are probably classified though. I’m sure my friends at the NSA, Groom Lake, and LL Labs would love to help, but haven’t been tasked with this job.
If this technology is classified. Should it be? Maybe. But I simply want to know, are they working on methods to defeat these bombs? If not could it be because that would be admitting a problem?
Also, if they use their shiny new technology to save grunts, (and not just for the Paul Bremmmers of the world) are they concerned that the Insurgents might figure it out and they can't use it again? Well Boo Fucking Hoo. Make more! Make different types. Be creative! Use science!
Remember the guy who said that nobody reads stories about car bombings? Even he had only read the ones he wrote?
So maybe he could juice up his story and make it more interesting. Maybe he could ask this question: We have technology that can stop car bombs. Why aren't we using it? We know you used it to protect Paul Bremmer, why can't you use it for all the troops?
Please explain why it wasn't used to the parents of the dead soldiers in the most recent IED.
Kilgore Trout and the power of Great Ideas
I just read a Kilgore Trout type SF book about Nano technology (Title? Nano. How clever!) I call these books Kilgore Trout books (Vonnegut created the character) because like Kilgore’s books, they are often poorly written, but contain interesting ideas to ponder. The book mentioned a 30 Billion dollar experimental plane. I thought, "They will spend billions to make one sexy war toy, to fight the last cool war. But right now Russian isn’t a huge threat, why aren't the big brains tasked to do something about a simple tactic that is killing people every god damn day in Iraq.? Not enough fun? Not enough funding?
It’s not a moon shot, it’s a new product launch
We don't need a Manhattan project. We don't need an Apollo project. We just need some of the smart guys and manufacturing dudes who launch a new cell phone every 2 months! Get your big brained boffins in a room and say, "These are the IEDs. These are how they are made. This is how they are triggered. How can we stop them? If we have to have multiple methods to stop them then what are they?"
The White House pretends to love private industry (but they really just love THEIR PRIVATE industry.) Why not go to Phillips or Nokia and say, "I need you to make 150,000 IED detection devices. Make me scramblers, detectors, trackers." Then go to the guys who have all the key hole satellites and say. "Today I need you to figure out how to track back to the sources these bombs. These are the dates and times. Analyze back several hours and then forward several hours and report back.”
Next go to the guys who make bioengineered corn and say, “I need a water soluble tracking device in these drinks. I want these guys to glow in wavelengths only we can see.” Then you can start tracking the next round of IEDs.
The odds are that all of these things (or variations on these) have been thought of and maybe even done. And it's probably classified. But what if they aren't doing these kinds of things? What does that say about Donald Rumsfeld and Cheney? If we are going to execute a war then figure out how to do it better! What a failure of leadership and vision.
Remember, we defeated the Borg
The insurgents are like the Borg. They learn, adapt. They are not stupid. We need to learn and adapt too. Again, maybe the government is already doing this. I'll go over to Opt. Truth and ask. The projects are probably classified though. I’m sure my friends at the NSA, Groom Lake, and LL Labs would love to help, but haven’t been tasked with this job.
If this technology is classified. Should it be? Maybe. But I simply want to know, are they working on methods to defeat these bombs? If not could it be because that would be admitting a problem?
Also, if they use their shiny new technology to save grunts, (and not just for the Paul Bremmmers of the world) are they concerned that the Insurgents might figure it out and they can't use it again? Well Boo Fucking Hoo. Make more! Make different types. Be creative! Use science!
5 Comments:
Spocko, there's always the off chance that the Cheneyburton administration doesn't really want to defeat the insurgents.
No endless war, no blank check.
Why, that's crazy talk! Just by thinking that you are enboldening the terrorists who are not in Iraq where they are killing american's people their rather than here where it would be messy.
BTW love this graph from your blog.
Roberts, the man no one knows, is neither conservative nor liberal. He is an animal of the Company, and about as straight as a six dollar bill. Under his rule, women's bodies will be the property of Pat Robertson, men will be thralls under Corporate fiat, and whatever happens to Cheneyburton may well be reversed for the major players by the Supreme Court.
"Straight as a six dollar bill." Sweet.
And an animal of the Company
Excellent decription. I plan to steal both and use in my day to day converstations.
Spoko, I enjoy reading your blog. I may as well comment on a few of the posts.
IEDs are Improvised Explosive Devices. The key word is Improvised. This means that the successful attacks are the ones that have just been developed. Technology is not the only thing that progresses, tactics do as well.
In the theater of Iraq lack of understanding (not knowledge, but understanding) of language and culture put us at a huge disadvantage. In addition there are coercive forces that use everyday people in the final stages (or at a critical juncture) to pull off the attack. It is like slipping a grenade into an old woman's purse just before she goes through a checkpoint. Even if she becomes aware of it she may not oppose you simply out of fear - maybe of being caught by the authorities and tortured for information she doesn't have, maybe because she feels she still has a chance to live once she gets through the checkpoint, and most likely she just doesn't know how to react. This is a limited example.
IEDs, while primitive by technological standards, are more advanced than, say, the M-16, which was designed in the 1950s. One would think that in half a century technology would have progressed to the point where bullets would no longer miss their targets, yet billions of rounds of ammunition never struck the intended target, and there is no reason to believe this will change anytime soon.
Many people are upset by the deaths of American soldiers (and indeed our allies), and are working very hard to find ways to make them safer (nor information, nor are we clairvoyant). It would be difficult to convince me that you (or anyone) could do a better job to protect them. Remember that though we are the largest economy in the world we by no means have access to unlimited resources. One could put 3 feet of titanium armor on every HMMWV (humvee) if that were the case; and more to the point IEDs would still be effective against soldiers and civilians not in the vehicle. One has to prioritize and allocate resources based on what is believed to be (remember you are making a prediction that the technology will actually work as intended in the field) the most effective and least costly outcome (both in terms of men AND materiel).
If this sounds evil than you should research civil engineering. People who construct public projects such as roads and highways have to make choices on how many people will die as a result of curving a road vs. dismantling an important part of the community. And whereas soldiers know they are risking their lives and could have chosen not to have joined the military, most people have no realistic alternative to driving to work.
None of this is a simple equation. Nothing in war is. If it were West Point wouldn’t have any students, and there would be no defense industry. Attacking ideas (and people for that matter) rather than contributing to the next best solution (because there will never be a perfect one) is counterproductive. Hate to be judgmental, but as my boss says, "gee, that's a really great idea - now go make it happen."
Dear Anonymous:
I sometimes forget that people who find my blog might have found it for the first time, and that some of my ideas build off of or even question earlier thoughts.
My over arching theme for this post has to do with a concept of dedicating the best resources to the job at hand. And while it might look like I'm bitching with out solutions. I actually do know something about solutions and I'm saying that we just aren't seeing anything like what is necessary to either protect or defeat IEDs.
More later.
I came back to your blog to see if there was any further comment. You stated that you have some ideas as to solutions that will defeat IEDs. I wouldn't mind seeing you post one or two of those solutions.
Post a Comment
<< Home