The Christian Science Monitor has an extensive article on the latest developments in drone technology that is worth reading.
"We're not about 20 years, or 10 years, or even five years away – a lot of this could be out in the field in under two years," says Mitchell Zatkin, former director of programmable matter at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, the Pentagon's premier research office.
The drone revolution and its continuing impact is fascinating to any student of military history and technology. As the article points out,
The development of a new generation of military robots, including armed drones, may eventually mark one of the biggest revolutions in warfare in generations. Throughout history, from the crossbow to the cannon to the aircraft carrier, one weapon has supplanted another as nations have strived to create increasingly lethal means of allowing armies to project power from afar.
The impact of the drone revolution on warfare is so dramatic that it creates numerous possibilities and raises many questions. If as expected, we eventually progress from the use of armed drones to true robots, acting according to programming as opposed to being under direct human command, we may have seen nothing yet.
In the not-too-distant future, military officials envision soldiers and robots teaming up in the field, with the troops able to communicate with machines the way they would with a human squad team member. Eventually, says Thompson, the robot-soldier relationship could become even more collaborative, with one human soldier leading many armed robots.
The whole article is extremely interesting reading.
When we look back at the past decade from a military history perspective, one of the things that stands out is the rise of unmanned drones as a key weapon of warfare. Today's New York Times has an article called, "War Evolves With Drones, Some Tiny as Bugs," that looks at current research and advances in drone technology. Here are some of the key points.
From blimps to bugs, an explosion in aerial drones is transforming the way America fights and thinks about its wars. ... far less widely known are the sheer size, variety and audaciousness of a rapidly expanding drone universe, along with the dilemmas that come with it.
The Pentagon now has some 7,000 aerial drones, compared with fewer than 50 a decade ago. Within the next decade the Air Force anticipates a decrease in manned aircraft but expects its number of “multirole” aerial drones like the Reaper — the ones that spy as well as strike — to nearly quadruple, to 536. Already the Air Force is training more remote pilots, 350 this year alone, than fighter and bomber pilots combined.
The roles and uses of drones will continue to expand, on land, sea, air and in space. The Times article looks at miniaturization and efforts to copy the flight of insects, but there are numerous other applications and possibilities for drone technology.
One thing is rarely mentioned in the many articles I've read about drones: defense against them. At the moment we are the leading user of drones and at the forefront of drone technology. Our opponents are non-state forces that are relatively low-tech in comparison. But at some point we might face an adversary with a sophisticated drone arsenal of its own, especially as drone technology not only becomes more advanced, but more widespread. With our extensive research efforts in developing drones, I hope we are also devoting some resources to defensive measures against enemy systems.
Over at Strategy Page there is an interesting article called, "Where China is Mighty." It's an interesting historical summary that recounts the effectiveness of naval mines. I was unaware that China currently possesses the world's largest stockpile of naval mines. According to the article, it has 100,000 out of the world total of 250,000.
Mines are not glamorous, but they are deadly weapons, both on land and sea. Unfortunately, capacity to clear mines usually lags behind the ability to manufacture and deploy them.
The U.S., and other major navies, are hustling to improve their mine clearing capabilities. But based on historical experience, and technical advances, the smart money is still on the mines. ... While often ignored, naval mines, in general, are a formidable weapon. But they just don't get any respect. The historical record indicates that admirals should rethink their attitudes.
China ostensibly needs all those mines to protect its long coastline. But as the article points out, mines can also be deployed offensively. And China has a lot of them.
I have mixed feelings about the proposed major arm deal with Saudi Arabia. On the one hand Saudi Arabia does function as a U.S. ally in the region, and as such we would prefer it to be a strong ally, with significant military capability.
A senior Defense Department official said the administration is prepared to authorize the sale of as many as 84 F-15 fighter jets and three types of helicopters: 70 upgraded F-15s, 70 Apaches, 72 Black Hawks and 36 Little Birds to the Saudis. ... Another deal, the senior Pentagon official said, could include selling the Saudis naval and ballistic missile-defense weapons systems that could be worth tens of billions of dollars more.
If those reports are correct, that's a huge arms purchase. But despite our alliance with Saudi Arabia, I'm not thrilled with the sort of reasoning excerpted below.
Defense industry analysts said the sale of the aircraft is a key to U.S. efforts to boost support from Arab allies against Iran.
"The U.S. is trying to create the strongest effort to deter and contain Iran," said Anthony Cordesman, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "If you look at all of these sales, the U.S. is working to create a Saudi Air Force that is far more capable than Iran. These sales help give Saudi Arabia the capability to convince Iran that it can't use missiles or air power against Saudi Arabia or its neighbors."
I'm all for containing Iran, but I think Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are weak reeds to rely on. And we already have a far stronger ally in the Middle East. It's called Israel, a country with proven advanced military capabilities. I see Saudi Arabia as a hollow shell, with a high-tech force that has little staying power. And there is another factor as well.
Saudi Arabia, and most of our other Arab allies are one Islamic revolution away from turning into enemies. If we are prepared to make this sort of strategic investment in Saudi Arabia, we also need to be willing to do whatever it takes to maintain the House of Saud in power. What that means is committing the U.S. to propping up an autocratic regime, and acting to assist it in the event that it faces a popular revolution. I have no confidence that the U.S. government is willing to do that. It is much more likely that we would do what we did with Iran, where we abandoned our ally the Shah to his fate, and let Iran turn into an enemy. The more advanced U.S. weaponry Saudi Arabia has if & when that happens, the worse it will be.
You may remember that the U.S. military was testing a so-called pain ray in Afghanistan. It produced some minor controversy.
Several weeks ago, site co-founder Sharon Weinberger and I started pestering the military about the decision to send a microwave heat ray gun to Afghanistan. Blasting the locals with an invisible pain beam, we suggested, might not be the optimal way to promote trust in the Kabul and Washington governments.
The system was withdrawn from Afghanistan back in July. But now they found a better place to test it, on U.S. prisoners in California.
The 7½-foot-tall Assault Intervention Device emits a focused, invisible ray that causes an unbearable heating sensation in its targets – hopefully stopping inmates from fighting or doing anything other than trying to get out of its way, sheriff's officials said.
This is yet another example of why I laugh at the hysterical overreaction of those who whine about the U.S. using some torture techniques on terrorist prisoners. How many times have you heard some fool bleat about how torture is "un-American," in complete ignorance or denial about not only history, but what goes on in our domestic prison system? There are numerous people who have an incredibly expansive definition of torture that encompasses almost any coercive technique, or even threats. But what about an invisible ray that makes people feel like their skin is on fire? As long as we use it to enforce compliance in U.S. prisons instead of extracting information from enemy prisoners, there's no problem.
Throughout the U.S., American citizens who have been convicted of no crime are regularly shocked into submission to police by a serious jolt of electricity from tasers. There are all sorts of nasty techniques used to control prisoners in jail -- techniques which many would consider torture. The rationale for using this pain ray is to break up fights in prison. What are the odds that it might be abused and used for other less justifiable purposes? But don't worry, it's not that big a deal, unless we were to use it in an attempt to interrogate foreign enemies who would like nothing better than to slaughter thousands of Americans.
I like and collect weapons, particularly human-powered types (as opposed to firearms) such as swords, knives, axes, clubs, etc. Lately I haven't been able to justify blowing any money, even a small amount. But the urge to buy has taken hold and I'm going to spend a whopping $50. What functional items can I possibly get for so little? Here are the options I'm considering.
1. A kukri from Nepal. I don't have one, and have always wanted one.
2. An assegai, either the long or short version. I don't have a spear, and I think I could find a place to throw it at a target. I have some minimal training with a long spear, but the shorter one would be more practical for storage.
3. A special forces shovel. It's cheap, practical, and I actually need a decent small shovel.
4. A kukri machete. It's very cheap, would sort of satisfy my desire to own a kukri, and leave some money to buy something else.
5. A blackthorn walking stick. This one is made out of cheap, but tough synthetic instead of wood. I used to practice a method of cane fighting, and have a nice, custom ash cane. But I also like this one.
6. A sjambok, a type of South African whip. It's cheap and interesting, although I'm not sure exactly what I'd do with it.
I've been toying with these ideas tonight. I mentioned them to my wife and got an eye roll, so I figured I would post my thoughts just for the fun of it, in case there are any other weapons fans reading.
UPDATE
I just ordered some stuff. I got the shovel for the practical value, the short assegai for the zombie apocalypse, and a cheap accusharp knife sharpener for when I'm too lazy to use my whetstones. Total price with shipping, just under $65. So I exceeded my $50 limit, but not by that much. Here's an impressive video of the shovel in action, doing things other than shoveling.
...When doing business abroad. The FBI just completed a big sting operation against U.S. weapons dealers.
22 top-level executives, including a senior sales executive at Smith & Wesson, were arrested in what Justice Department officials called the first undercover sting ever aimed at violations of the federal ban on corporate bribes paid to get foreign business.
The ban is called the "Foreign Corrupt Practices Act," and was passed in 1977.
[it] prohibits American citizens and companies — and, since 1998, foreign citizens and companies acting in the United States — from bribing foreign government officials to get or keep business.
In my opinion this law is an unnecessary attack on U.S. industry. The reality is that bribes are necessary in many nations in order to grease the wheels of commerce. The ban damages the ability of U.S. companies to compete, and criminalizes what is normal business practice in many areas of the world. And, as usual with this sort of international do-gooderism, it gains us nothing. There's just no reason for it. If businessmen are violating foreign laws, they can be arrested and prosecuted under those laws. This sting operation by the FBI is a massive waste of resources to address a non-problem.
If you want to see why most human rights advocates shouldn't be taken too seriously, look no further than an LA Times opinion piece by Jody Williams called, "United States' shameful land mine policy." Williams (like Obama) is a nobel peace prize winner and the "founding coordinator of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines." As the title indicates, Williams is horrified and upset that President Obama won't sign the International Mine Ban Treaty. The entire article is a pretty funny combination of hysteria, emotionalism and naivete. Here are some amusing excerpts.
Obama's position on land mines calls into question his expressed views on multilateralism, respect for international humanitarian law and disarmament. How can he, with total credibility, lead the world to nuclear disarmament when his own country won't give up even land mines?
Apparently she actually believes that Obama could somehow "lead the world to nuclear disarmament." I guess that's not surprising from someone that thinks a treaty to ban mines is actually going to prevent a country that really needs to use them from doing so.
I voted for Obama. I wanted to believe that his soaring rhetoric might actually be turned into a revival for the U.S. on issues of multilateralism, international humanitarian law and, of course, human rights. But at the moment, I'm quite disillusioned.
If Williams is "disillusioned" with Obama, he must be doing something right. And someone might want to tell her that there is no such thing as international humanitarian "law." Ideas about human rights vary wildly throughout the world.
When will the U.S. join the rest of the world in banning these insidious weapons of terror that have caused so much heartbreak and devastation?
Hopefully never. Denying ourselves the possession of weapons as useful as mines because of the bleatings of naive fools like Williams would be the height of idiocy. And of course the "rest of the world" has hardly banned them. At this very moment one of the greatest threats our soldiers face in Afghanistan, as previously in Iraq, are IEDs. Improvised explosives devices are a type of command-detonated mine. Mines come in a wide variety, from improvised weapons such as IEDs, to highly specialized weapons that can be delivered and deployed in various ways.
Treaties banning weapons are largely unenforceable, except possibly against weak states, give a false sense of security, and remove valuable and useful military options. Far from considering banning mines, the U.S. is hopefully working to develop new more effective types that take advantage of the latest technology. Demonizing weapon systems is based primarily on emotionalism, and should be ignored by policy makers. Look at William's cry, mines have caused "so much heartbreak and devastation." You know what else causes heartbreak and devastation? Bullets and artillery shells. We aren't banning them and we shouldn't ban mines either. There is nothing "shameful" about the U.S. refusal to sign a useless and harmful treaty.
Over at even yet another blag there's a post with a picture showing Palestinians slinging rocks at Israeli soldiers. The title is, "David and Goliath, 21st century edition." I thought that picture was interesting, and I looked into it further. I was unable to find any reports that Israelis had killed those Palestinians. Why would they kill them? In most cases, soldiers respond with deadly force when attacked by deadly force. But the Israelis do not.
The sling is an ancient weapon, and was an instrument of warfare for centuries. Slingers, particularly from the Balearic Islands, were valued auxiliaries to the Roman legions. Slinging stones at an enemy is similar to hurling javelins or firing arrows. It is a missile weapon meant to kill and wound.
a missile leaving a sling could easily attain a velocity of 100 km/h, or about 28 m/sec. Vegetius wrote that sling missiles were more effective than arrows against soldiers clothes in leather, since they did not need to penetrate the leather in order to cause bruises. Should the soldier wear no protective clothing, the missile would penetrate the body easily up to a range of about 100 meters.
The fact that it is an old, primitive weapon, does not lessen its lethal possibilities when used today. The Israelis would be justified in killing Palestinian slingers out of self-defense. But they do not. Instead they respond with non-lethal weapons such as noxious gas, and accept the risk of damage and death from slung rocks. This is yet another of the many examples of Israel putting its own soldiers at risk, in order to minimize casualties among its enemies.
A student at John Hopkins found an intruder in his garage, and the man attacked him. The student responded by defending himself with what the report calls a "samurai" sword. The result? He cut off one of his attacker's hands, and inflicted a "severe laceration" to his chest, mortally wounding him. Attacking someone holding a sword -- not a good idea.
I found this report particularly interesting because I've had a few years of training in western martial arts, particularly with German longsword techniques (a two handed Renaissance weapon about four feet long). Anyone that has trained with such a weapon -- which is used differently than a Japanese sword but has some similarities -- knows how vulnerable the hands are to attack. It's not surprising that the intruder had one of his hands cut off. The report implies that the hand-removal was the killing blow.
There wasn't much detail in the report, but I'm assuming that the student must have picked up his sword when he went to investigate his garage. You don't too see many instances of swords being used in self-defense, since carrying them around in normal circumstances tends to be frowned upon. I'd be interested in knowing what type of sword he used, and if he had any training. Not that it's necessary. Assuming the other person was unarmed, or under-armed, even a cheap stainless steel wallhanger can kill. But it's not that easy to land a clean cut capable of severing a hand.
larger arms deals concluded by the United States with developing nations last year included a $6.5 billion air defense system for the United Arab Emirates, a $2.1 billion jet fighter deal with Morocco and a $2 billion attack helicopter agreement with Taiwan. Other large weapons agreements were reached between the United States and India, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, South Korea and Brazil.
Apparently we lead not only in overall sales, but also in sales to the developing world. As much as I like seeing America's defense industry prosper, given the volume of sales, I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that a significant number of our arms deals were probably inadvisable. Just as we have a tendency to hand out foreign aid to pretty much anyone, we also sell weapons to many countries that we should think twice about supplying with U.S. equipment. But unlike foreign aid, at least we are getting paid.
Not content with simply enforcing the archaic 1958 law against importing switchblades, the Obama administration is planning to expand the prohibition. Its changes would
expand the 50-year-old ban on importing "switchblades" to include folding knives that can be opened with one hand, stirring fears the government may on the path to outlawing most pocket knives.
Aside from being unnecessary and idiotic, the expanded ban could turn a bunch of ordinary people into criminals.
Critics of the rule say that broadening the definition of switchblades in federal law would instantly make previously permitted knives illegal in states that have adopted the ban. Hunters and hikers who cross state lines with their knives in tow may find themselves guilty of a federal felony, they warn.
You have to wonder if there is any rationale behind the ban at all, other than the usual big government impulse to keep as many weapons as possible out of the hands of ordinary citizens. Not only should the ban not be expanded, but it should be repealed entirely. I'm sure the average gang member, with his arsenal of illegal firearms, is sitting around thinking: if only I could get a switchblade. I'd be unstoppable! Knife bans of any kind are ludicrous, especially when far more effective weapons are readily available to anyone who wants them -- well, except for law-abiding citizens who actually obey weapon bans.
