SMALL ARMS ACCURACY—AND LETHALITY—MAY BE ABOUT TO IMPROVE DRAMATICALLY

One byproduct of the last 13 years of war, has been a significant increase in the accuracy of the U.S. military’s small arms. Primarily, that has been due to improved sighting systems. Iron sights still have their uses—but optical sights dominate. Where the actual rifle is concerned, both the Army and the Marines still cling to the M16 and M4 using the 5.56 x 45mm NATO round—even though vastly superior rifles and calibers are available (but that is another story).

As to the impact of such an increase in accuracy in combat, no data has been released on that—as far as I know—but suffice to say that we seem to rarely lose firefights unless substantially outnumbered; and anecdotal evidence would seem to support the notion that such improvements in accuracy are having an impact. In fact, the growth in the popularity of IED’s by our enemies is—in its own lethal way—a comment on the fact that going head to head with U.S. forces is career shortening.

Small arms accuracy may be about to improve dramatically in the future thanks to a new fire control system developed by Tracking Point. In fact, the Army have just bought  six XactSystem precision-guided firearm kits. Each will be calibrated to the XM-2010 sniper rifle and the M248 Mod 1 rounds, which are standard-issue .300 Winchester Magnum.

Let me quote briefly from that excellent publication, the Army Times:

Don’t expect the technology to remain exclusive to snipers if all goes well. Lucas said the Army is looking at advanced fire control for machine guns, carbines and the M320 grenade launcher.

TrackingPoint’s technology is well ahead of the field, Lucas said. Company officials put first-round hit probability in excess of 80 percent at 1,200 meters and upward of 98 percent at 800 meters. They call a 500-yard shot “easy” and consider 300 yards to be point-blank.

And variants can be mounted on weapons to include the M110 Semi-Automatic Sniper System and the individual carbine. This gives soldiers first-shot probability at the weapon’s maximum effective range, substantially increasing lethality and standoff distances down to the squad level.

And shots are not confined to point targets. A processor inside the scope can track moving targets up to 10 mph. The computer calculates offset and lead and, like the point target, the shooter simply places the aiming dot on the targeting dot and squeezes the trigger.

The digital scope makes the difference. It has a 110mm telephoto lens and a 14-megapixel image sensor streaming at 54 frames per second. It ranges from 6x to 35x. Unlike most scopes, the capture begins at the longer length to keep the picture clear no matter the distance.

The tracking scope also offers a number of features that come in handy downrange. It can:

■ Hard-line secure communications

■ Live-stream secure video to Android and iOS smart phones and tablets.

■ Tie in to integrated dismounted soldier situational awareness systems such as Nett Warrior.

■ Designate or identify blue and red forces.

■ Conduct target handoff from a drone.

■ Provide 10-digit grid of a target.

The scope also can be used as a laser designator.

The following is how the system itself works:

The closed-loop system includes a Networked Tracking Scope and semi-electronic guided trigger. Here’s how it works:
■ The shooter lases the target with the push of a button located at his trigger finger. He doesn’t have to dial in all of the dope.
■ A computer calculates 16 variables to include spin drift of the bullet, barometric pressure, temperature and magnus effect. It immediately generates a ballistic solution and places a targeting dot on the screen.
■ The shooter does not look directly at the target. He instead looks at a small display screen in the scope, which is hard-wired into a semi-electronic trigger.
■ The shooter squeezes that trigger as he aligns the aiming dot with the targeting dot. A solenoid keeps the weapon from firing until the aiming dot hits the designated target point. But once they touch … BAM! Shot out.
This takes human-induced errors such as trigger jerk and jitters out of the equation.
■ After shooting a few rounds for familiarity, the whole cycle can be done in a matter of two seconds.
■ Windage is the one thing the scope doesn’t calculate. Predominant wind speed and direction is shown on the display and adjustments are easily made with the push of a button — one press compensates for one-half mph.

By the way, we civilians can buy a civilian version of the XactSystem for somewhere between $22,500 and $27,000—but you will be relieved to hear that includes a custom Surgeon rifle.

It really is about time that our military procured a new rifle firing a different caliber for general use. We have used the M16—and variations—for over half a century. As we all know, technology has advanced considerably over that time. Personally, I think it is about time we moved to caseless ammunition.

 

 

 

 

 

#68 / FEB 5 2014: WHY DOES A THRILLER WRITER WRITE ABOUT THE ECONOMY?

Right now, Seattle is going nuts over the Seahawks—and rightly so (and freezing to death in the process—it’s cold around here at present).

The win is giving a well deserved boost to the morale of a truly great city, so I’m delighted—though the truth is that I have almost no interest in sport at all. In a way I wish I did, because it is a great social lubricant—but we are what we are.

But I mention the Seahawks to help to explain how I feel about the economy and economics in general. I find that world fascinating intellectually—and I don’t mean in a dry, academic sense. I mean that I find it as exciting and entertaining as most of us seem to find sports—and when I gain a fresh insight, I feel as thrilled as a football fan seems to be when his or her team scores.

Overall, I write about economic matters for several reasons:

• As stated, I find them fascinating. You see my kind of economics is really a study of human behavior—an investigation or voyage of adventure  if you will—so has much more in common with thriller writing than you might think. My economic world has heroes and villains, action and suspense, considerable humor, and includes all kinds of interesting gadgetry and exotic locations. About all that is missing—compared to one of my thrillers—is sex. I’ll have to think about that.
• I guess I feel we should all know rather more about such matters than most of us do. After all, though all kinds of things are important to us, our economic wellbeing is absolutely fundamental.
• I have enough ego to think that one of these days, I shall write something which—together with the efforts of others—will make a difference. The fact that this country has 316 million people in it (give or take) does not persuade me that one person’s efforts are futile. On the contrary, it makes one’s efforts to change things for the better all the more worthwhile.
• I know I’m not a particularly good statistical economist, but I do think I have a talent when it comes to understanding the various forces at work—and we all have a tendency to want to play to our strengths when and where we can.
• And, by the way, I am an economist—though in my day, the university course was called “Economics & Sociology.” Today it would be referred to as “Behavioral  Economics.” So the real question should be: Why is an economist writing thrillers?

Funnily enough, I don’t study the economy to make money. Though it is necessary to have enough money to survive—and pleasant to have a little more so you can live comfortably—personal financial gain is not my motivation. The adventure involved in solving the mystery is—and suspense and surprises are a constant.

But surely—given the large number of economists in Washington DC alone—all the possible solutions to our various economic woes will have already been tried or explored?

So you might think—but you would be wrong. In fact, there are a host of reasons why even the most talented experts don’t come up with solutions—or don’t declare them even if they have thought of them: Ideology is one; another is that they don’t want to be accused of being socialist—or some other such label; over-specialization is a third; lack of perspective is a fourth; inadequate knowledge of other countries is a fifth; a sense of futility—because the Republican will block anything that might help this administration is a sixth; careerism is a seventh.

Bear in mind that very few economists forecast the recent Great Recession. As it happens, I did—back in 2004. I did so for a mix of reasons—some economic and some political. It added up to the conclusion that the economy was structurally unsound—and something would have to give. I underestimated the scale of the financial crisis. 

I still hold to the view that our problems—most though not all—are  structural. Since we haven’t resolved the underlying issues, that means we are heading for another recession—only this time we’ll be less resilient because most of us haven’t recovered from the last one.

Is the next recession preventable? No—it’s not; because there is a lemming-like quality to the human condition. But can it’s effects be ameliorated? Yes, of course they can be—but we are doing almost nothing to prepare.

#67 / FEB 5 2014: A HEALTHY DEMOCRACY REQUIRES VOTERS TO BE BOTH INFORMED AND INVOLVED. CURRENTLY, WE DON’T HAVE THE STRUCTURES TO ACHIEVE THAT

My brain seems to be naturally wired to question the status quo. That doesn’t make for a peaceful life, but the search for better ways of doing things is intellectually rewarding—if nothing else—and I guess some of us have to do it.

I try hard not to be destructive—there is much that is good out there, which is best left alone—but I doubt that few would deny that there is room for improvement in how we govern ourselves. In fact, I hold to the view that we don’t give it nearly enough thought. Instead, we grumble about government, but devote our talents and energy to other matters.

My sense is that we’d be better off if we really did govern ourselves. I’m not advocating rugged individualism, or less government. Instead, I’m exploring more effective government—and how the gap between between the ordinary citizen and government can be narrowed. Here, I don’t claim to have found the answers as yet, but I’m convinced this goal is worth serious further research. Just because we’ve always done things a particular way doesn’t mean mean there isn’t a better way.

Let me list some guiding principles:

• The status quo is unacceptable.
• People have to feel part of something if it is to work well—and particularly if change is involved.
• People can’t feel part of something unless there is a climate of trust.
• People can’t feel part of something unless they are kept well informed. As matters stand, that is not the situation.
• A ‘them and us’ environment tends to be destructive—and, at present, that is the situation between the average citizen and the government..
• Fast computers, the high speed internet, modern communications plus technology allow us to do things that would have been inconceivable—even in the past. Now, my sense is that we are reaching critical mass in terms of capabilities.
• The split between government and the governed is man-made—so can be changed.
• Congressional districts are so large—the current average is 710,767 per district—the relationship between citizen and member of Congress virtually has to be distant. It is made even more so by the fact that members listen mostly to those who fund them.
• Reform of the constitution is long overdue.

Initial thoughts:

• Gerrymandering has to be be done away with.
• The excessive influence of money in politics has to be curbed.
• We need a structure at local level which will tie everyone into the business of government. I don’t know exactly what form it should take as yet, but it should be interactive with a strong emphasis on information and communication.
• There is no reason why people should not work for both private businesses and government at the same time—possibly by splitting the working week. This should not be confused with privatizing (which has a murky track record).

Case history:

The Swiss can field a formidable military force in a very short period of time. It is well armed, well trained and proficient. Much of the administrative burden is handled within the context of people’s normal jobs. This cuts costs dramatically. Total expenditure is only 0.9% of GDP (perhaps a fifth of U.S. military expenditure according to how you calculate). The Swiss military system also functions as social glue and a superb networking environment—useful in a nation which splits into German, French, Italian and Romansch speaking populations.

Declaration of interest: I spent some months in Switzerland while researching my book, GAMES OF THE HANGMAN. This included research into the Swiss military. There is much we can learn from the Swiss—and, in my experience—they are certainly not dull.  

Photo is of a Swiss Air Force F-5E Tiger II crossing a road between the runway and an aircraft cavern in Mollis airfield. in 1999.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#66 / FEB 4 2014: WHY DO WE PAY WOMEN LESS? IT’S UNFAIR, UNJUST, AND BAD FOR THE ECONOMY. THEY ARE ALSO AN IMPRESSIVELY COMPETENT SEX

I have never really understood the male attitude towards women. If a good quality of life, linked with a reasonable degree of contentment, is the standard we aspire to, it has long seemed to me that women are better at achieving it than men. Beyond that, it has been my observation that where men do achieve a pleasant life style, there are almost women involved somewhere. It has often struck me that without women, we males would be lost. Perhaps that is not the case if you are a gay man, but even so, mothers, sisters, female relatives and friends play a vital role.

I say this despite having had a very difficult upbringing—largely because of my charismatic but dangerously unpredictable, violent, and self-indulgent mother (who was not without her good points)—and despite having encountered some truly unpleasant women in my life. But, the good has far, far, outweighed the bad. Starting with my much loved grandmother, Vida Lentaigne, I have been privileged to know—and, in many cases still know—some truly wonderful women. Sadly, some have died before their time—almost all of cancer (which in itself makes me wonder).

Leaving sex out of it (as if you can) women—generally speaking—are more practical, more caring, better at intimacy, markedly less violent, and extraordinarily competent if given a chance. Many are beautiful—regardless of age (and beauty is more than a physical thing). Frankly, without them, life wouldn’t be worth living. We probably wouldn’t have the option.  Leaving reproduction out of it, males have a pronounced tendency to want to kill each other—and to do so.

In some ways, I’m surprised the male sex hasn’t died out. Given the way technology is progressing, it remains a possibility.  

Are women more trustworthy? Here I would say no. That practical streak ensures that. But are they any less trustworthy than we males? I’ll have to think about that—but I doubt it. Ego, ambition, and stupidity make men just as treacherous.

By now you’ll gather that I hold women in high regard. I do so based not only on my own experiences, but through observation. In fact, it’s hard to find a field where women don’t hold their own if given a chance.

We now come to the thorny question of why American society still treats women so badly. I can think of a number of reasons for it:

• Historically, women have long been exploited because men are stronger—so have been able to. This falls into that classic category of: They do it because they can. It’s a power thing.
• Women—overall—tend to be less ambitious; and are more reluctant to fight their corner.
• Women have been socially conditioned to accept the status quo.
• The current American Business Model is based upon paying low wages and salaries wherever possible.
• Our political system continues to be dominated by men.

This is yet another American structural problem—and it is about time it was solved.

This is yet a further example of the need to update the Constitution. If we had any sense we would arrange it that virtually all our institutions—both public and private—were run on a 50/50 basis. We’d be better off for it—and there would be more love and less war.

 

 

#65 / FEB 3 2014: WHERE BUSINESS IS CONCERNED, PROFIT SHOULD BE LIKE AIR—ESSENTIAL, BUT NO MORE THAN A MEANS TO AN END: “THE ATTAINMENT OF THE COMMON GOOD THROUGH DEMOCRACY & SOCIAL JUSTICE”

I have been thinking a great deal about the corruption of the current American Business Model, and recently ran across some of the writings of Justice Louis Brandeis. His words resonate with me, and the clarity and prescience of both his prose, and his thoughts, are stunning.

They are also particularly relevant today where we seem to be dealing with many of the same challenges that he faced. I suspect that reading his works in detail will provide some answers. They certainly supply inspiration.

What an admirable man! What an intellect! What a writer!

It’s a sad thing that Corporate America—subject, as always to some notable exceptions--which has done so much to build this great nation, now seems so hell-bent on destroying it. Has Brandeis been forgotten? “…the attainment of the common good through democracy and social justice.” It would be hard to state the goal of this Great Nation with more accuracy—yet it has no place in the current American Business Model.

But, let me defer to Justice Brandeis.

What are the American ideals? They are the development of the individual for his own and the common good; the development of the individual through liberty, and the attainment of the common good through democracy and social justice.

“True Americanism” (1915).

We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.

As quoted by Raymond Lonergan in Mr. Justice Brandeis, Great American (1941), p. 42.

The most important office, and the one which all of us can and should fill, is that of private citizen. The duties of the office of private citizen cannot under a republican form of government be neglected without serious injury to the public.

Statement to a reporter in the Boston Record, 14 April 1903. (quoted in Alpheus Thomas Mason, Brandeis: A Free Man's Life (1946), p. 122.)

In the field of modern business, so rich in opportunity for the exercise of man's finest and most varied mental faculties and moral qualities, mere money-making cannot be regarded as the legitimate end. Neither can mere growth of bulk or power be admitted as a worthy ambition. Nor can a man nobly mindful of his serious responsibilities to society view business as a game; since with the conduct of business human happiness or misery is inextricably interwoven.

"Business — The New Profession", La Follette's Weekly Magazine, Volume 4, No. 47 (November 23, 1912), p. 7.

Real success in business is to be found in achievements comparable rather with those of the artist or the scientist, of the inventor or statesman. And the joys sought in the profession of business must be like their joys and not the mere vulgar satisfaction which is experienced in the acquisition of money, in the exercise of power or in the frivolous pleasure of mere winning.

"Business — The New Profession", La Follette's Weekly Magazine, Volume 4, No. 47 (November 23, 1912), p. 7.

Strong, responsible unions are essential to industrial fair play. Without them the labor bargain is wholly one-sided. The parties to the labor contract must be nearly equal in strength if justice is to be worked out, and this means that the workers must be organized and that their organizations must be recognized by employers as a condition precedent to industrial peace.

Reported in Osmond Kessler Fraenkel, Clarence Martin Lewis, The Curse of Bigness: Miscellaneous Papers of Louis D. Brandeis (1965), p. 43.

The prevalence of the corporation in America has led men of this generation to act, at times, as if the privilege of doing business in corporate form were inherent in the citizen; and has led them to accept the evils attendant upon the free and unrestricted use of the corporate mechanism as if these evils were the inescapable price of civilized life, and, hence to be borne with resignation.

Dissent, Liggett Co. v. Lee, 288 U.S. 517 (1933).

Through size, corporations, once merely an efficient tool employed by individuals in the conduct of private business have become an institution-an institution which has brought such concentration of economic power that so-called private corporations are sometimes able to dominate the state. The typical business corporation of the last century, owned by a small group of individuals, managed by their owners, and limited in size by their private wealth, is being supplanted by huge concerns in which the lives of tens or hundreds of thousands of employees and the property of tens of hundreds of thousands of investors are subjected, through the corporate mechanism, to the control of a few men.Ownership has been separated from control; and this separation has removed many of the checks which formerly operated to curb the misuse of wealth and power. And, as ownership of the shares is becoming continually more dispersed, the power which formerly accompanied ownership is becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few... [and] coincident with the growth of these giant corporations, there has occurred a marked concentration of individual wealth; and that the resulting disparity in incomes is a major cause of the existing depression.

Dissent, Liggett Co. v. Lee, 288 U.S. 517 (1933), at 565-67.

Regarding my own life, I have to say that the following quote—given that I have a tendency to attempt the near impossibly difficult (normally with inadequate resources)—has cheered me greatly.

Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done.

Louis D. Brandeis

‘Awesome’ is an overused word—but sometimes it’s no more than adequate.

#64 / FEB 2 2014: A TERRIBLE EVENT, A WONDERFUL PIECE OF WRITING—AND A LOVE STORY

There is a quite remarkable piece of writing featured in the current Washingtonian www.washingtonian.com 

Entitled THIS IS DANNY’S PEARL’S FINAL STORY, it is written by Asra Q. Nomani—and it will move you, even if your heart is made of stone.

I would like to think that anyone who reads this blog stops short of that fate. 

The Danny Pearl piece is written with unsurpassed elegance, simplicity, and sincerity—and it recounts a terrible event, and its consequences, with a truly remarkable candor.

I have rarely read a piece of non-fiction that moved me more. It is also, it is clear, a love story—and despite the horrendous way Danny Pearl died, it is told with tenderness and enough humor to pay a tribute to the man himself. He emerges as an admirable, lovable, man. As for Asra Nomani, I can’t find the words to do her justice. Her writing talent aside, she has a beautiful spirit.

Danny Pearl, you will recall, was the highly regarded Jewish journalist who was decapitated on Pakistan a few months after 9/11. His killer was KSM—Khalid Sheikh Mohammed—who carried out the deed personally. Though there is clear evidence of his guilt, KSM has never been charged. Instead, the U.S. prosecution have felt it sufficient to charge him with planning 9/11.

You can see their point, but after reading an account of how Danny Pearl died, your may feel that KSM should have been charged with that death too—if only to give closure to those who loved him.

The following is a brief extract from this extraordinary piece.

We all respond to trauma differently. For a decade, I subsisted by dissociating, by putting up a barrier between my emotions and the trauma of the murder. I took an analytical, clinical approach to it, investigating and absorbing every detail of Danny’s case but never grieving him.

Seeing KSM’s hand, I so badly wanted him to be charged with the crime. But I knew it wasn’t likely. In 2006, a group of federal officials had recommended trying KSM for 9/11, not Danny’s death, even though they believed they had a strong case for murder.

“Looking at the two photos, there was nothing that stood out to me to contradict that conclusion,” Morris Davis, the chief prosecutor for the Guantánamo military commission from 2005 through 2007, told me. “I have no reason to doubt that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed killed Daniel Pearl.”

From a procedural perspective, as it was explained to me, federal officials felt that bundling Danny’s case with the 9/11 charges would make KSM’s prosecution more complicated.

And so it became clear, at Guantánamo, that the only work left for me to do was to heal my wound.

“What is grief?” I recently asked psychologist Steven Stosny, posing the obvious question I’d avoided for so long.

“It’s an expression of love,” he told me. “When you grieve, you allow yourself to love again.”

“How do you grieve?” I asked him.

“You celebrate a person’s life by living your life fully.”

No better advice. Go read the full story. It is heart-rending and wonderful—and gives me hope about the human condition. It also makes me conclude, and not for the first time, that women have a great deal more understanding of humanity than we men. 

Men are an aggressive and violent lot with a propensity to posture. I am reminded of my egomaniacal bantam hen, Yul Brynner, who liked to strut around my cottage when I was writing my first book, GAMES OF THE HANGMAN.

He was adorable—but a cock of little sense. That said, most cocks have little sense –and it was hard not to deny his energy. He would screw a rivet into place—and his harem gave every sign of being satisfied.

An odd detail: Yul Brynner sent his son, Roc Brynner, to my old university, TCD—Trinity College Dublin—and he ended up dating a former girlfriend of mine. I know nothing about Roc at all except to note that he showed good taste.

 

 

 

 

#63 / FEB 1 2014: COULD IT BE THAT AMERICANS ARE WAKING UP TO THE GROSS DISTORTIONS WITHIN OUR ECONOMY? IF SO, WHAT IS GOING TO BE DONE ABOUT IT? POSSIBLY VERY LITTLE.

A family friend, who had fought in North Africa in WW II, liked to tell a story of his first encounter with American troops. The incident concerned a soccer match—which first required making a playing field. The British completed their half by hand—taking many hours to do so. The Americans then arrived with bulldozers and completed their half in minutes. “The Yanks,” he used to say, “are a can-do people.”

When it comes to social justice—and making the U.S. economy work to the benefit of all Americans—the jury is out on “can-do.”

It is hard to consider that the U.S. is the “Greatest Country in the World,”—to use a phrase that one hears constantly—in the absence of social justice.

Given this extraordinary country’s many virtues, that is a pity.