Got a tip for Noah?
SEND IT!
(Guaranteed Confidential)
Subscribe

Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Bomb Squad
Cammo Green
Chem-Bio
Cloak and Dagger
Comms
Cops and Robbers
Data Diving
Dissent Tech
Drones
Eat My Dust
Eye on China
FCS Watch
FOS Files
Gadgets and Gear
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
Info War
Iraq Diary
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Net-Centric
Nukes
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Space
Strategery
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
War Update
You can run...

See all Archives
Related Links
News and Intel
Military.com News
Aviation Week
Natl Defense Mag
Strategy Page
Global Security Newswire
Soldiers for the Truth
Security News
Defense Review
Fed Comp Week

Security Sources
GlobalSecurity.Org
Fed Am Sci
CSIS
Ctr for Defense Info
Defense & Natl Interest
Instit for Sci & Intl Secy
Secrecy News
POGO
Cryptome
The Memory Hole
Natl Security Archive

Geeks and Mad Scientists
Slashdot
Wired News
Security Focus
The Register
Gizmodo
Geek Press
Robots.Net
Cosmic Log
Space Daily
New Scientist
TechCentralStation
Engadget
Space.Com
Technology Review
Gyre
Near Near Future
Fed Dev Blog

Bloggers and Buddies
Phil Carter
Global Guerillas
Jeffrey Lewis
Milblogging
OPFOR
Laura Rozen
Larisa Alexandrovna
Juan Cole
Ryan Singel
Josh Marshall
Cursor
Boing Boing
InstaPundit
Winds of Change
Tapped
TalkLeft
Brad DeLong
Mountain Runner
Gene Healy
Clive Thompson
Greg Djerejian
Jeff Quinton
Workbench
Electrolite
Jim Henley
War in Context
Kathryn Cramer
Wash Park Prophet
Blogs of War
Tom Shachtman

Official Dispatches
DARPA
AF Research Lab
Marine War Lab
Soldier Systems Ctr
Naval Research
Army Research Lab
UK Def Sci Lab
NASA News
DoJ Cybercrime

Military Network
Military Benefits
Veteran Employment
GI Bill Express
Personnel Locator
Free ASVAB
The Few
Fred's Place
Army Insider
Navy Insider
Air Force Insider
Marine Corps Insider
Coast Guard Insider



Edited by Noah Shachtman | Contact

Real-Life Ray Gun: Say When?

JIN.jpgI was skeptical, when I first heard about the idea of using lasers and man-made lightning to detonate explosives at a distance. Not only did the technology sound fantastic. But the company pushing the real-life ray gun, Tucscon's Ionatron Inc., seemed so damn squirrely -- long on press releases and shady political connections, short on specifics about how their technology really worked. And that's before you start digging into the questionable stock deals and patent violations. So I wrote Ionatron off for while, despite more and more headlines about the firm and its "Joint IED Neutralizer" -- JIN, for short.

Then, over the summer, I got a call from an Army general who had seen the thing in action. By using femtosecond lasers – light pulses that last less than a ten-trillionth of a second – JIN could carve conductive channels of ionized oxygen in the air. Through these XXXX-foot channels, Ionatron's blaster sent man-made lighting bolts. And they actually seem to work at neutralizing bombs. "We understand the physics of what we're trying to do. Now we're just working on the engineering," the general told me. "I think we're going to solve that problem -- and this is just a guess -- in 12 months, maybe 18."

It turns out the general wasn't the only one who was impressed. Last year, "then-deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz recommended investing $30 million in research and sending prototypes to Iraq for testing," the L.A. Times reports. Ionatron CEO Tom Dearmin told eDefense that the first of 12 units would be in Iraq by the end of July.

"But 10 months later — and after a prototype destroyed about 90% of the IEDs laid in its path during a battery of tests — not a single JIN has been shipped to Iraq," the Times notes. "To many in the military, the delay in deploying the vehicles, which resemble souped-up, armor-plated golf carts, is a case study in the Pentagon's inability to bypass cumbersome peacetime procedures to meet the urgent demands of troops in the field."

"The decision has been made that it's not yet mature enough," said Army Brig. Gen. Dan Allyn, deputy director of... the Joint IED Defeat Organization. Iraq is "not the place to be testing unproven technology."

But the Marine Corps believes otherwise and recently decided to circumvent the testing schedule and send JIN units to Al Anbar province in western Iraq... Based on their performance, Marine commanders said, they hope the device can eventually be used throughout Iraq.

Just about every arm of the Defense Department that deals with R&D has been struggling to figure out when to send new technologies to the field. Wait too long, and you're robbing troops of a valuable tool. Field a gadget too quickly, the un-worked-out kinks can ruin its reputation in the military for a while. Troops can even get hurt, relying on an unstable machine.

Usually, the Pentagon errs on the side of caution. Some of the most valuable tools in Afghanistan and Iraq -- the Predator drone, the Stryker armored vehicle -- were deemed not ready for prime time by Defense Department testers.

But despite "thousands of little items found wrong with the Stryker," it was fielded anyway, Army Test and Evaluation Command chief Major General James Myles told me recently. The problems were small and fixable enough that the Stryker was sent out "four or five years" earlier than what the old regulations would've required. So what if the brakes don't work in the extreme cold? "We can't wait for a perfect solution to get a weapon to the field."

The Times pairs the JIN hold-up with the "military's failure to provide sufficient body armor and adequate armor for transport vehicles." But that's not quite right. There's a big difference between getting proven life-savers to a combat zone, and figuring out when something brand new is good enough to be deployed. That goes double for ray guns.

UPDATE 03/21/06 9:38 AM: This post, and some of the comments to it, have been modified in the interest of operational security.

Latest Comments

As we adapt our tactics so do the insurgents; we, wervicemen and women, need to stay a step ahead. Eventually, Iraqis will step up and take control of their country. Foreign aid happens... Days of the "people rising" have been eliminated in part to technological advances. Sit-ins don't work when life is not valued by fanatical Muslims.
Don't comment on what you don't know; that is ignorance.
***********

Excuse me, but I always find it hilariously funny when an obvious conservative starts using liberal talking points to defend himself. Foreign aid, building governments that will "step up and take control", etc., all liberal arguements. Rich.

Posted by: MadSat at July 18, 2007 8:39 AM


I heard about this concept sometime ago but I did not realize it has come so far. I also had not heard that it was to be used for detonating explosives. Excellent. Are nonlethal applications like long distance taser beams still on the table?

Brad said: "I always thought the main problem with IEDs was detection, not disarming.."

As I understand, one of the problem with detection is identifying one from a piece of trash. If a couple quick zaps could settle the issue instead of having to send out a bot or specialist at foot speed it might speed things up. That's just my speculation though and it would depend on the cost per unit and the efficiency of using the device.

As for all the "technology is not the answer" folk who fall for the myth of the low-tech insurgents holding their own against the vast military spending of the evil American empire it is not happening. The enemy is not marching on coalition positions proudly waving their cheap Russian guns; they are scurrying from house to house trying desperately to make bombing attacks against civilians look like military successes. There are also a large number of school bombing "insurgents" in prisons and graves because of night vision goggles, Predators and satellites. There are many soldiers alive today because of the success of robots.

The locals in Al-Anbar province are turning against al-Qaeda, in part because the stink of failure is upon them and the great spring offensive that the media was hoping would bring the Taliban back to relevancy was a flop. The romance of low-tech is a consolation for losers.

Posted by: Saul Wall at June 22, 2007 9:53 PM


Maarten- This seems to be above your paycheck. Get a dictionary and use it. Your ideas or the ones you quote from John Kerry may then be taken seriously.
As we adapt our tactics so do the insurgents; we, wervicemen and women, need to stay a step ahead. Eventually, Iraqis will step up and take control of their country. Foreign aid happens... Days of the "people rising" have been eliminated in part to technological advances. Sit-ins don't work when life is not valued by fanatical Muslims.
Don't comment on what you don't know; that is ignorance.

Posted by: JP at December 14, 2006 4:54 PM


i need good children help permas jaya is very dangerous permas jaya malaysia planet60 07-3882323

Posted by: ponkin14 at May 14, 2006 12:46 AM


Throwing more technology at a non technology problem won't make an iota of difference.

It is not that the technology doesn't look impressive.

It is not that the thinking ability and innovative approach is un-valued

It is simply that the issue in Iraq is not about the technology, it is about different approaches to valuing the world. Until we realise that, more lives will be lost and substantial amounts of money will be spent achieving little. There is a big difference between activity and productivity. At the moment, there appears to be an awful lot of activity.

Posted by: MPB at February 22, 2006 3:04 AM


» View All 17 Comments

» Post a Comment