Talkin' Tasers

The ironies started early. Here we were, in a museum devoted to things that kill -- from lances to revolvers to laser weapons of the "Western Space Alliance." But inside the cranberry-colored auditorium at the Royal Armouries in Leeds, we 120-or-so white guys gathered to talk about weapons that are specifically designed not to cause lasting harm.

Most of the presenters at Jane's 8th Annual Less-Lethal Weapons Conference -- and most of the audience -- were cops or soldiers or weapons salesmen or military-funded academics. So I figured the presentations would mostly sing the praises of these weapons. That's the way it would've worked back home, in the U.S.

But things were different here. Of the eleven speakers today, two were outwardly hostile. Five more expressed serious reservations about "less-lethals," generally -- and about specifically about Tasers, the highest profile of the weapons.

As the critiques piled up, however, I got increasingly nervous. Because I had been told it was my job to "stir things up" at the confab. So I had prepared a pretty tough analysis of the often ham-handed, often squirrelly way that Taser International markets its products and deals with the press. (Click here for the prepared text.)

So I gulped, and got on stage. Instantly, I was told by the moderator to make it quick, because things were running behind schedule. Gulp again. But I took the time to start with a beer joke. At least it would get the Canadians in the room laughing.

As I plowed through my talk , I could see the host getting more and more uncomfortable. See, Taser was one of the main sponsors of the conference. And I was at least the fifth or sixth guy peeing on the company's parade. About three-quarters of the way through the talk, the moderator cut me off. I guess it was getting late. Plus, the moderator wanted to assure the audience -- and the folks from Taser, standing in the back -- that my talk was "billed" as a speech on "press relations." It was a mistake to focus too much on one company, he added.

I got back on the mic, and emphasized that I wasn't trying to beat up on the company (well, not its products, anyway). Taser was just a case study. It's the less-lethal weapons-maker we all knew best in the States. And how it's perceived will reflect on other less-lethal firms -- and users -- for years to come. The audience clapped to that. And afterwards, a rep from Taser said he had enjoyed the talk. He'd fly in from London, he told me, to personally show me around the company's Arizona HQ.

Here's the talk...

The LLW Paradox. I'm here today to talk about how the public and the press sees LLWs. Specifically, I'm going to talk about the paradox behind LLW perceptions. We've got a class of weapons that has been specifically designed not to be killers – to give soldiers and police a more humane, safer way to handle conflicts. But, judging from the press accounts, you'd think those weapons were mass killers. Roll out a modern-day “daisy cutter,” designed to wipe out a neighborhood in a single stroke, and the media applauds. Test a stun gun that might shock a single suspect, and, all of a sudden, reporters start getting very antsy. Shoot someone with in the face with a .45, and there’s a teeny-tiny mention of it on page B29. Shoot someone with a rubber bullet, and it’s front page news.

The question is: why? Where does all this hostility come from? What's behind this less-lethal paradox? Let’s look at Taser International’s line of LLWs as a kind of case study. Because, with all the attention being paid to the company, Taser serves as a bell weather for the entire LL movement. I’ll get in to some larger, cultural issues in a moment. But in Taser International's case, specifically, I'd argue that how the company markets itself -- and deals with the press -- has made an already adversarial environment much, much worse.

Just about every newspaper, just about every television station has run a damaging story about Tasers. Maybe it's an allegation of Taser abuse; maybe it's someone dying after being stunned; maybe it's a lawsuit; maybe it's a new report about whether the stun guns are really safe. The end result is a tide of bad press for the company, with little attention paid to the lives that might be saved by the stun guns, or the conflicts that get more or less peacefully resolved.

The Selling of the Stun Gun. Back in 2001, Taser International marketed its weapons as "less lethal." But as the stun guns have gained in popularity – and the questions around their use have grown louder – the company has changed its tune. Tasers became completely "non-lethal," according to the company. In small print, the company says that "non-lethal" means the Pentagon definition: "weapons that are explicitly designed… to incapacitate." But most people don't read the small print. They assume non-lethal means "it doesn't kill." And Taser officials have helped that assumption along, by meeting any suggestion that Taser's weapons are anything but benign with an all-out assault.

For example, last October, Amnesty International came out with a report on Tasers that I thought was pretty balanced, given the source. It started out by "acknowledg[ing] the importance of developing… 'less than lethal' force options to decrease the risk of death or injury inherent in the use of firearms." That sounds like a sentence straight out of a Taser International press release. Then the Amnesty report went on to say that "while coroners have tended to attribute such deaths to other factors (such as drug intoxication), some medical experts question whether the Taser shocks may exacerbate a risk of heart failure in cases where persons are agitated, under the influence of drugs, or have underlying health problems such as heart disease."

"Some medical experts question whether the Taser shocks may exacerbate a risk of heart failure." Like I said, pretty mild.

But Taser International’s response was double-barreled: "Anyone living in the real world in which law enforcement officers worldwide have to make split-second life or death decisions knows that Amnesty International’s report and position is out of step with the needs of law enforcement concerning our proven life-saving technology… Furthermore, we are particularly disappointed by Amnesty International’s complete disregard for the health and safety of the men and women of law enforcement who put their lives on the line every day."

That is what we call in my business the "classic non-denial denial." There's no response to the substance of the matter. Only name calling. To reporters, this isn’t a convincing response. It’s an admission that the Amnesty report is largely accurate. It’s an invitation to dig deeper.

Besides, we all know that no weapon is 100% "non-lethal." Not even a fist. That’s why this conference is on “less-lethal weapons,” and not “non-lethals.” If that’s true, than why has Taser International clung so tightly to the “non-lethal” label. And is the company's insistence – angry insistence – on its lack of lethality helping its image in the media – or hurting it?

Another example: This past June, USA Today, embarrassingly, screwed up the number of amperes that the Taser guns put out. The paper made it sound like the weapons were 100 times stronger than an electric chair. The firm responded… by suing USA Today's parent company, Gannett, for "libel, false light invasion of privacy, injurious falsehood and tortious interference with business relations."

Now, this is a bad idea on any number of levels. Not only are libel cases all-but-impossible to win in the United States. But it also gives the impression that Taser's arguments can't stand on their merits… they have to turn to the courts instead. Worse still, Gannett owns the firm's hometown paper. So suddenly, it's got an adversary in its back yard. Again, is Taser International’s pugilistic attitude helping Taser… or hurting it?

The Coroner's Call. For years, Taser International officials boasted that their weapons had never been cited in an autopsy report. "No deaths have occurred as a direct result of the use of TASER technology products," the company said in April 2004. "We continue to be amazed by the premature, unfounded, speculation in the media concerning the unexpected, unforeseen deaths of criminal suspects while in police custody after use of TASER device. In every single case the medical examiner has attributed the direct cause of death in the autopsy reports to causes other than the TASER device."

On July 18, 2004, that changed. The company's hometown paper, the Arizona Republic, discovered that Taser International couldn't have known what coroners were saying, because the company hadn't even started keeping track of autopsy reports until April of that year. What’s more, the paper instantly claimed it had found eight cases where Tasers were found to be a contributing cause of death. Now, that number has grown to 18 deaths is which a Taser may have been a factor.

The company responded by citing numerous "independent" studies which it said proved the weapons were safe. But exactly how independent those studies were is a matter of debate. One was a January 2005 Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology report, which asserted that the Taser ''may be safely applied multiple times if needed." But that study could hardly be called independent – two of the report's four authors were Taser employees.

To make matters worse, on July 29th, a Cook County, Illinois medical examiner became the first to list the electro-shock weapon as a primary cause of death. Now, this was an unusual case. Ronald Hasse was shocked for 57 seconds, more than 10 times the usual amount, before he died. So the company could have said this was some kind of gross negligence or freakish oversight – an outlier, am exception that actually proves the rule. Instead, the company immediately hit back, challenging the coroner's conclusion.

The next month, two doctors in the New England Journal of Medicine found that a shock from a Chicago Police Taser caused a 14-year-old to die from cardiac arrest. Again, the company immediately disputed this allegation, as it has done so many times before. It sent a memo out to law enforcement agencies that the doctors had it wrong.

But the Arizona Republic now counts 147 deaths somehow tied to Taser use. Obviously, there were extenuating circumstance in a large number of these cases – drugs, heart problems, what have you. And maybe the stun guns are completely blameless in each and every case. But there are only so many body bags an image can take. Denial, pushback, and lawsuits only go so far.

The Shadow of Abu Ghraib. Even if Taser had kept a much less militant tone all along, it would have still face a very skeptical press, however.

In most people's minds, torture and pain are intertwined. And so any weapon which is primarily designed to deliver pain is automatically going to be seen as a torture device. In that way, just about every LLW is going to begin with a cloud of suspicion overhead.

But Tasers have it worse than most. Electricity and electro-shock weapons have been used by governments around the world to torture their citizens and their captives. Amnesty International has documented electro-shock torture in 87 countries. Not just in the places you’d expect it, like Saudi Arabia or China. But in America, and Canada, and Spain.

Tasers, for the most part, have not been directly involved. But the company has suffered from the association. In fact, sometimes, the American military has used the painful associations with electricity to their advantage.

None of us will ever forget those awful pictures from Abu Ghraib, the ones with prisoners wired up, to simulate electrical torture. But here’s a story which most people aren’t familiar with: During the early days of the Iraq war, the American military was having major difficulties at a prisoner-of-war camp holding "high-value detainees." Members of the 800th Military Police Brigade had to use lethal force several times to quell prisoner uprisings. Then, one of them had an idea: Saddam’s regime had routinely used electrical torture devices on dissidents. So maybe the former Baathists would be particularly scared of an electrical weapon, like the Taser. The military police were trained on the weapon. And “immediately after the training,” an Army report later noted, “one company commander… took the M-26 into the compound and held it aloft pulling the trigger. The 15 high voltage arcs per second were enough to intimidate the previously hostile prisoners and there has not been an assault against the guards since that time.”

"'Holy Shit!' was the response,” said one soldier who was there that day. “They moved away, they got it in line. It was a significant event for them."

The next year, four American soldiers were punished for "excessive use of force," And "in particular… the unauthorized use of Taser."

Hollywood has only reinforced the association between tasing and torturing. During one episode of the show "24," a suspected American turncoat is tased repeatedly in the neck during interrogation.

Stories of police using the weapons against toddlers and the wheelchair-bound have only reinforced the idea that the stun guns can be wielded with devilish intentions. Last November, Miami police used a Taser on a six-year old, to keep from cutting himself with a piece of glass. A South Tucson, Arizona police sergeant was put under investigation for tasing a handcuffed 9-year-old girl. One analysis of 2,690 Taser field uses, cited by Amnesty International, "shows 183 applications (7.4%) involving children aged 10 to 18."

A Denver Post report from May 4, 2004 found that 90 percent of the subjects tased by the police department there were unarmed. Most times, the weapon was used to "force people to obey orders, to shortcut physical confrontations and, in several cases, to avoid having to run after a suspect." More than two-thirds of those charged with a crime faced only a misdemeanor charge or a citation. In December, 2004, Miami police used a Taser to subdue a man in a wheelchair who threatened them with scissors. Four months later, local authorities Tasered “an Orlando man was handcuffed to a hospital bed for refusing to take a urine test that would confirm he had ingested cocaine."

Why are some members of law enforcement becoming so seemingly reckless with their Tasers? Obviously, sometimes – most of the time -- it's the result of poor decision-making, or just plain bad policing. But I’d argue that, in a larger sense, the restrictions on Taser use are loosening because many cops view them as absolutely, positively, 100 percent non-lethal – just like the company claims. In fact, a Taser may be viewed as the only absolutely, positively, 100 percent non-lethal item they’ve got in their arsenal. Yes, there’s been safety training from the company. But the message they’ve heard over and over again is that there are no repercussions to Taser use. What's the harm, then, is using one of the weapons – on anyone?

"The Taser originally was seen strictly as an alternative to deadly force," the Tampa Tribune notes. The company promotes this view over and over again on its website. But, over time, that view has changed – in Tampa, and around the world. Now, a Tampa officer "can use the Taser if the suspect is offering 'passive physical resistance.' The suspect does not have to pose a threat to anyone; he may be making an officer's job more difficult by staying put when he is asked to move or bracing his arms when officers are trying to handcuff him… The reasoning is: By refusing to move as ordered, a suspect is forcing a deputy to resort to force - grab a suspect, say, or chase him - and in an ensuing struggle, the deputy or suspect might be hurt. So the deputy shoots him with the Taser instead."

So in the space of a couple of years, tasing went from being the alternative to shooting someone, to the alternative to grabbing someone’s arm. That is just wrong. And, until it stops, Tasers are going to looks less and less like a humane tool for policing – and more and more like an easy, lazy way to torture. No wonder the company’s press is so bad.

Beyond the Stonewall. The point here isn’t to beat up on Taser. It’s to provide an example of how guys like me are seeing the company in particular, and LLWs as a whole. Consider it friendly advice. Tough love.

So how could Taser International – and, by extension, other LLW makers – start to repair the damage? Realism is a good start. Everybody knows that every weapon can kill. So stop feeding reporters and citizens fairy tales. Recently, the company has begun to back off the "non-lethal" claims; the description has vanished from recent press releases. That's a good start. Pushing further would be even better. Admit that the weapon, in the wrong hands, can be dangerous. Shine a light on those problems – and, in the process, educate the police and the public on how the weapons can be used safely. Cooperate fully in all investigations – don't hit back every time a coroner finds something distasteful. Find out how the company can help. Again, Taser has made some good progress here, with the new camera addition to its X26 model. But there’s more to be done.

Next, partner up with critics. Not sit with someone from Amnesty International on some panel. Really partner with them: take their advice, implement their proposals. They've had questions about whether independent studies are really independent? Fine, help *them* set up studies. They're worried about police misuse of Tasers? Fine, ask them what kind of training materials they'd like to see.

This is hard. No question about it. But nothing could go further to restoring Taser International's image than a seal of approval from the ACLU or Amnesty International.

It may require eating some crow. But it can't be worse than the beating Taser International is taking in the press today. And if it can turn its image around, all LLW users will benefit. And the promise of breaking the cycle of violence can finally begin to be fulfilled.

At the end of the talk, Taser International’s Steve Hynd got up to say that that these kinds of dialogues were already under way. By the way, he added, the company had offered both ACLU and Amnesty twice the chance to hand-pick researchers that Taser would then fund. The groups, he claimed, turned Taser down.

In the U.K., however, these kinds of partnerships already seem to be in placeas Tasers begin to be slowly rolled out here. Ian Arundale, from the Association of Chief Police Officers, said that consulting with “pressure groups” like Amnesty was a critical precursor to a more widely arming local cops with the weapons. “The more we build up arguments to satisfy these observers, the better.”

Katrina Tech: What Worked, What Sucked

In this month's Wired, Mike Keller has "the inside story of how one hurricane" -- that'd be Katrina -- "wreaked telecommunications havoc. Check out his (all-too-brief) article on "what stayed online, what didn't -- and why." DSL and cells drowned. TV stations and emergency radios rose to the surface.

$1.2 Bil in Guard Gear, Gone

Oy. Somehow I missed this bit of good news from last week: "The Army National Guard estimates that its units left over 64,000 items valued at over $1.2 billion overseas. However, the Army cannot account for over half of these items and does not have a plan to replace them," the Government Accountability Office, Congress' investigatory arm, said in a report last week.

The Army talking point for a while now has been that National Guard and Reserve units get treated just as well as regular Joes. And, in many cases, that's true. But it's hard to imagine active duty units being allowed to piss away $600 million worth of trucks and radios and NVGs. According to the GAO, guard units had anywhere from 65 to 79 percent of their "required war-time items" before 2001. These days, "nondeployed Guard units now have only about one-third of the equipment they need for their overseas missions, which hampers their ability to prepare for future missions and conduct domestic operations."

Obviously, the priority has got to be put on the fellas in the field. But, still. The guard obviously has some pretty serious responsibilities at home. And given how often these guys are deploying, they need to be able to train to fight.

(Big ups: Defense News)

Kinko Commandos

Your commanding officer wants you to crank out a whole bunch of propaganda in a hurry. But you're miles and miles from your base. And Kinko's isn't expected to open a branch in the Hindu Kush for a long, long time. What to do?

SOCOM wants its commandos to have a Humvee-mounted, deployable print production center (DPPC) to handle their psychological warfare needs. Special Operations Technology magazine has the details:
A preferred system, as a minimum, must be capable of producing 13,000 11-by-17 sheets, produced two sided, single color, cut to produce 100,000 leaflets in a 24-hour period. Preferably, the system will be able to produce 13,000 11-by-17 sheets, produced two sided, multi-color, cut to produce 100,000 leaflets in a 24-hour period. The minimum acceptable quality is 600 dots per inch (dpi) with an objective of 2,400 dpi...

Additionally, the DPPC must include an electric paper cutter capable of cutting/trimming a 500-sheet stack of 11-by-17 inch paper, with an objective of being able to cut/trim a 1,000 sheet stack of 11-by-17 inch paper...

Not just your corner copy shop, the DPPC must be designed to handle work at the secret level, and have appropriate procedures to meet DoD Information Technology Security Certification and Accreditation Process requirements.

Navy Prepping for Deep Cuts

Last year, when the Defense Department's civilian chiefs ordered programs to be trimmed, generals and admirals didn't salute and say, "Yes, sir." They mounted massive public relations campaigns, and fought the cuts on Capitol Hill.

Now, the Pentagon is "looking to cut between $13 billion and $15 billion from the U.S. Department of Defense’s 2007 budget," Defense News notes. And after all those billions spent on Katrina and on another year in Iraq, there are indications that the men in uniform might be a little less reluctant about paring back their budgets this time around.

Senior Navy officials -- facing a possible $18 billion trim over the next six years -- are "weighing cuts to big-ticket programs such as the DD(X) destroyer, the Marine Corps’ variant of the Joint Strike Fighter and the LHA(R) amphibious ship," says Inside the Navy.

An internal e-mail dated Oct. 11 indicates Vice Adm. Mark Fitzgerald, commander of 2nd Fleet, proposed cuts to those programs in a discussion with fleet admirals about the endgame of the FY-07 program review. Fitzgerald, a former head of the Navy’s aviation requirements office, is but one of many voices shaping the budget. Regardless of whether his ideas are adopted, the e-mail obtained by Inside the Navy reflects the kinds of high-stakes choices that admirals and generals are discussing in private.

“As we look at money vs capability, we clearly cannot afford all these new toys and maintain our current capability,” Fitzgerald writes.

Lights, Camera, Bombing

John Robb is, as usual, a must-read today. Here's his take on the series of bombings in Baghdad.

The entire event was staged for the benefit for the western reporters who have become virtual prisoners of their hotel rooms in Baghdad (since they couldn't go to the war, the guerrillas brought the war to them). The incident was in clear view of the AP's mounted video camera (which recorded the entire event) -- footage that will be endlessly replayed in newsrooms across the globe...

The effect desired from this highly orchestrated event...as to radically magnify the menace, uncertainty, and mistrust (all of which are aspects of moral conflict) of those in the media. It was also intended to bring those same feelings, by extension, to the public the reporters represent. As an example of tactical innovation by Iraq's open source insurgency, it was brilliant (unfortunately for us). It will set the expectations of the media -- re: this conflict -- for months.

THERE'S MORE: "The more I think about this place and yesterday’s attack on the Palestine/Sheraton compound, the more I feel that it’s time to leave here — and that I’m a coward for thinking that," confesses Defense Tech hero Chris Allbritton, who's spent years reporting from Iraq. "I don’t want to desert this story. I don’t want to let my friends down. I don’t want to leave my staff, who have bravely stuck by us and who can’t leave like I can. But I also don’t want to die for this story."

London Calling (and Leeds, Too)

I'm on my way to the U.K., to give a liitle talk at Jane's 8th Annual Less-Lethal Weapons Conference. Hopefully, I'll be able to do some blogging from the show -- "Pharmacological Non-Lethal Weapons," anyone? "Vortex Rings?" "Attenuating Energy Projectiles?"

Anyway, if you're going to be in Leeds (where the confab is being held) or in London (where I'm going to hang out for a few days afterwards) gimme a shout: defense-AT-defensetech-DOT-org.

New Iraqi Threat: Pressure Bombs

"Until recently, most roadside explosives in [Iraq] were triggered remotely by an insurgent using a cellphone, doorbell or other wireless device," USA Today notes.

But U.S. forces have picked up more and more radio frequency jammers to keep the bombs from going off. And so the insurgents are switching gears.

"The new weapon out there is the pressure-detonated IED," Col. Steven Salazar, commander of the Army's 3rd Brigade Combat Team, warned company commanders during a recent battle briefing. "It's a very dangerous tactic..."

Pressure-switch bombs [do they mean landmines? -- ed.] aren't entirely new. They have been used, on and off, by insurgents as far back as fall 2003, says Maj. Dean Wollan, intelligence officer of the 3rd Brigade. They still are commonly found in Ramadi, Fallujah and Baghdad.

In the Baqouba area north of Baghdad, insurgents had abandoned the use of pressure-triggered bombs this spring after U.S. and Iraqi forces discovered eight of the devices before they could be detonated. The bombs were poorly assembled, Wollan said.

The re-emergence of pressure-activated bombs has come as insurgents have acquired more expertise in building and placing them. "These guys either received additional training, or new personnel has moved in to show them how to do it correctly," Wollan said.

Bulletproof Briefcases for Sale

I am a lucky man. Just when I was about to go shopping for a bulletproof briefcase and a kevlar jean jacket, Engadget points me to Spycatcher of Knightsbridge.

The British online retailer has all the typical spy-store goodies, from the "Bug Hunter 9000" to the Evac-Hood personal escape mask. But there are some security-centric geegaws listed here that I haven't seen anywhere else. Anyone need a "Junior spy kit" -- "A selection of items to get a budding spy going"? Or maybe "Chinese army combat periscope"? The kids will love that one, too, I'm sure. It's listed under Spycatcher's "Fun Stuff" category, after all.

Rapid Fire 10/24/05

* Software glitch frees jailbirds

* Biodefense bill all wrong

* Dubya's "10 Plots" MIA

* Enemy KIAs are back

* Israeli F-16 sale, blocked by DC

* Fighter jock loses wings

* Rummy saddles up
(Big ups: /., DID, JQP, RC)

Fighter Jets' New Role: Recon

This has been an extremely cool couple of weeks for Defense Tech. Not because of anything I've written. But because several of my favorite journalists covering the military have been pitching in. David Axe -- who just returned from Basra, on assignment for the Village Voice -- is the latest.

In addition to the Village Voice, David's written for The Washington Times, Salon.com, Proceedings, Sea Power, Air International, Combat Aircraft, Aircraft Illustrated, Warships International Fleet Review, and others. He's also a video journalist for C-SPAN. His graphic novel memoir, WAR FIX, comes out in the spring. David's nonfiction book about Army ROTC, called ARMY 101, is due in 2006 from University of South Carolina Press.

U.S. tactical fighters haven’t dropped a lot of bombs since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But it's not like they haven't been busy. In seven months "The Bengals" – that's Marine All Weather Fighter Attack Squadron 224 to you -- flew 2,500 sorties in their dozen F/A-18Ds, totaling around 8,000 hours.

So what were The Bengals doing with all these flight hours? Reconnaissance, is what: Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR), in current mil-jargon. The confluence of low-intensity warfare and new technology (especially small, cheap targeting pods) means tactical jets are spending less time dropping bombs and more time collecting intelligence for Marines and soldiers on the ground.

During the Cold War, tactical aerial reconnaissance (recce) was the purview of a large force of specialized platforms like the RF-4C. In the 1990s, the U.S. services quickly shed their recce platforms -- until a shortage of assets over Bosnia and the Persian Gulf prompted a panicked renewal that saw a small number of Air National Guard F-16s and Marine F/A-18Ds equipped with podded or palletized cameras. Then came Iraq, where skyrocketing demand for ISTAR outpaced even the rushed introduction of drones like Predator. During the invasion, Marine AV-8Bs equipped with Litening targeting pods (containing laser designators and trackers as well as Forward-Looking Infra Red and Charge Couple Device cameras) pioneered the use of targeting pods in the recce role, spotting insurgents for ground forces to go hit.

Even before the development of targeting-pod ISTAR tactics, there was a push across the services to equip all tactical aircraft (tacair) with new targeting pods like Litening and Sniper in order to facilitate autonomous use of Precision Guided Munitions (PGM). Even B-52 and B-1 bombers and A-10 Close Air Support jets are getting pods. Serendipitously, the PGM revolution has enabled an ISTAR revolution. Now, after a decade of relatively modest investment, there are literally thousands of ISTAR-capable jets in the U.S. inventory.

Developments in radar and other sensors are only strengthening the ISTAR capabilities of tactical jets. F-15Cs, F/A-18E/Fs and F/A-22s equipped with Active Electronically Scanned Array radars are capable of simultaneous ground-mapping and tracking of ground targets, essentially acting as mini E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) aircraft. Passive sensors like cameras and Radar Warning Receivers round out multi-spectral tacair ISTAR capabilities.

Perfecting this “sensor fusion” is a major selling point of the next generation of fighters. Lately, the Department of Defense has begun promoting the future F-35 as an ISTAR asset while de-emphasizing its traditional ground-attack capabilities. But the Bengals' collection of pods and radars already do a pretty good rough approximation.

Rapid Fire 10/21/05

* RFID vs. friendly fire

* Missile-spotting blimp passes test

* Senators push for biodefense agency

* McCain defends FCS

* Cows get retina scans

* Titan's final lift-off

(Big ups: Chuck)

FEMA Official: Feds Snoozed Through Katrina

AP: "Federal Emergency Management Agency officials did not respond to repeated warnings about deteriorating conditions in New Orleans and the dire need for help as Hurricane Katrina struck, the first FEMA official to arrive conceded Thursday."

Marty Bahamonde, a FEMA regional director, told a Senate panel investigating the government's response to the disaster that he gave regular updates to people in contact with then-FEMA Director Michael Brown as early as Aug. 28, one day before Katrina made landfall.

In most cases, he was met with silence. In an Aug. 29 phone call to Brown informing him that the first levee had broke, Bahamaonde said he received a polite thank you from Brown, who said he would check with the White House.

"I think there was a systematic failure at all levels of government to understand the magnitude of the situation," Bahamonde said...

Later, on Aug. 31, Bahamonde frantically e-mailed Brown to tell him that thousands are evacuees were gathering in the streets with no food or water and that "estimates are many will die within hours."

"Sir, I know that you know the situation is past critical," Bahamonde wrote.

Less than three hours later, however, Brown's press secretary wrote colleagues to complain that the FEMA director needed more time to eat dinner at a Baton Rouge restaurant that evening. "He needs much more that (sic) 20 or 30 minutes," wrote Brown aide Sharon Worthy.

"We now have traffic to encounter to go to and from a location of his choise (sic), followed by wait service from the restaurant staff, eating, etc. Thank you."

No wonder DHS Secretary Chertoff now says that FEMA bungling, and not an inept local response, was the primary problem with the handling of Katrina.

THERE'S MORE: The LA Times has Bahamonde's classic response to a FEMA flack's urgent request to give Brownie some more time for dinner:

"OH MY GOD!!!!!!!" Bahamonde messaged the co-worker. "I just ate an MRE" — military rations — "and crapped in the hallway of the Superdome along with 30,000 other close friends so I understand her concern about busy restaurants."

Robo-Race Winner Got Smart

How did Stanley, the winner of Darpa's $2 million all-robot race across the Mojave, learn to drive? "In much the same way as any 16-year-old: by following the lessons of experienced humans," says the Merc-News.

When the Stanford team first started testing Stanley, a blue sport-utility vehicle, he had a 12 percent blunder rate for ``false positives'' -- incorrectly assuming 12 percent of the objects in front of him were obstacles big enough he had to swerve around them.

So the team instructed Stanley's software to take notes while a human driver maneuvered the car over different types of terrain. By following this guidance, the false positive rate dropped to one in 50,000 objects.

This kind of debugging, conducted during 1,200 miles of off-road testing in the deserts of Southern California and Arizona, put Stanley first across the finish line in Primm, Nev., after traversing a 132-mile course with no human intervention.

In some ways, this is a model for how Darpa wants to teach machines, generally. Here's a piece I wrote last year on the agency's attempt to produce cars that learn from their mistakes -- and think for themselves.

Dogs 1, Sensors 0

The U.S. government is pouring a ton of cash into new-jack sensors that can sniff out hidden explosives. But the Customs and Border Protection agency has decided to stick with a more tried-and-true method. The agency has increased its 1400-dog K-9 force by more than 200 in the last two years, says National Defense magazine.

The reason is the sensitivity of a dog’s nose, said David Sturm, an instructor here, at the CBP’s Canine Enforcement Training Center. “Science hasn’t come up with a sensing technology yet that beats a dog’s nose,” he said. “Humans smell a stew. Dogs smell the carrots, the potatoes, the meat. They break it down.”

THERE'S MORE: In the comments, Edward wonders if the new litter of bomb-sniffing pooches is at good as the old one. They're not, replies Kelly, who has been working with the dogs for three years.

Rapid Fire 10/20/05

* Inside Iraq's navy

* Arms control sex-toy party

* Brits' recruiting down, too

* Intern for Darpa! (Marines only)

* Giant blimps get congressional nod (background here)

* Wanted: space flotilla

(Big ups: JQP)

Bioterror in DC?

What if Washington DC got hit with a bioterrorist attack -- and no one noticed? That's the scenario Mark Benjamin sketches out in Salon.

On Sept. 24, 2005, tens of thousands of protesters marched past the White House and flooded the National Mall near 17th Street and Constitution Avenue...

Unknown to the crowd, biological-weapons sensors, scattered for miles across Washington by the Department of Homeland Security... sucked in trace amounts of deadly bacteria called Francisella tularensis. The government fears it is one of six biological weapons most likely to be used against the United States...

The DHS scrambled... on Sept. 30 -- six days after the deadly pathogens set off the sensors and well into the incubation period for tularemia -- alerted public health officials across the country to be on the lookout for tularemia, the deadly disease caused by F. tularensis...

Sept. 24 was not the first time the Bio Watch sensors had detected possible biological weapons pathogens. Since the system was deployed, sensors around the United States have identified pathogens that could be used as biological weapons on five separate occasions, Jeffrey Stiefel, program manager for Bio Watch chemical countermeasures, said at an open lecture at the National Institutes of Health on Oct. 6. In all of those cases, the detections were apparently the result of natural phenomena. Indeed, some critics have long worried that one weakness of the Bio Watch program might be the difficulty of distinguishing between natural events and terrorism...

As for how the bacteria may have erupted through natural processes, says [Dr. Steven] Hinrichs of the University of Nebraska Center, "I can't imagine how it could have happened..."

Regardless of the source, [Alan Pearson, a former DHS official, who is now the biological and chemical weapons director at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation] says he was troubled that it took the government nearly a week to alert the public. "It points out that the system is still not working fast enough," he says. "If it turned out to be something that really affected people, which it turned out not to be, the system was too slow."

All true. But doesn't this "attack" also show how unattractive a weapon f. tularensis really is? Until now, Al-Qaeda and Co. have gravitated towards spectacular strikes -- one with lots of explosions -- and towards simple ones, that require a minimum amount of technology and expertise to pull off. Spreading f. tularensis over the Mall violates both of those rules of thumb. Could this be the harbinger of a new wave of bioterror attacks? I guess, maybe. But I'd worry more about subway bombs and hijacked planes instead.

THERE'S MORE: Jason Sigger, a chem-bio specialist, is less diplomatic. He says the Salon piece is "full of crap."

This is the problem with BioWatch, in that many natural pathogens will set these things off just fine without stirring up ideas of terrorist incidents. They're not that sensitive, they're air samplers that allow techs to take sample swabs to the labs for analysis. Tularemia is a natural bioorganism found in the environment. Lots of people kicking up dust on the Mall, the organisms float around. The BioWatch sensors HAVE false alarmed in Houston and LA at least (pretty sure) and probably other places unreported. The false alarm rate is in the single digits, but that still generates a number of false alarms. The public health people want this to be taken as a terrorist incident because it would increase their chances of getting more money into the general public health infrastructure, which is their goal to answer bioterrorism.

Tuli is a great BW agent, very infectious but not contagious, not a lethal agent as noted here - too easy to treat once detected. But the idea that this was a terrorist test? come on. If the feds were excited, it's because the combination of a large public event and the alarms were suspicious, but there's no big deal here. False alarm from detectors, fuel for the bioterrorism talking heads, good Tom Clancy material, nothing more. Bottom line, no one got sick, no one died, it wasn't a terrorist incident.

He's got more to say over at his blog, Armchair Generalist.

Last Best Reminder

Anybody see Last Best Chance last night? Newsweek's Johnathan Alter caught the nuclear terror docu-drama:

It lacks special effects (too expensive) and a satisfying ending (too unrealistic), but effectively offers an all-too-plausible scenario of how a Russian scientist desperate for cash could provide highly enriched uranium through middlemen to Arab jihadists. “So, American Hiroshima begins,” says one terrorist.

I couldn’t get my kids to watch it. My daughter said it was “Too much of a downer,” which about describes the attitude of policymakers. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said early this year there was “no huge problem” with the security of nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union. But Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean, co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, which studied the issue at length, strongly disagree. They believe nuclear terrorism is a “distinct possibility...”

Of all the varieties of incompetence in this, the Age of Incompetence, the most deadly involves the potential of nuclear terrorism. After years of foot dragging, Presidents Bush and Putin have finally agreed at summit meetings this year that it is the single most serious threat in the world today—far more likely than a nuclear exchange by superpowers. And yet they and their governments are not following through quickly enough to secure loose nukes at their source. At the pace we’re going, it will be 13 years—2018—before all of them are recovered and deactivated, by which time even the most sober analysts believe terrorists will likely have blown up and contaminated some city forever.

Rapid Fire 10/19/05

* GoogleSat modders give Pak aid

* Gov. Bill, back at the table

* Two words: inflatable robots