http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8520303.stm
Dowsing for bombs? Seriously, folks, how do they get away with it? It would never in a million years have occurred to me that any army anywhere would be prepared to pay $2.50, let alone $30,000 apiece, for a dowsing rod. The idea would be too ridiculous even for a silly story on ABC. Yet, according to Newsnight, the Iraqi government has spent $85,000,000 on the things.
Is there any way we can cash in on 'military intelligence'? (An oxymoron, surely?)
How about detecting terrorists by their star signs? A military grade star chart generator a bargain at $50,000.
How about destroying WMD by telekinesis? Quite expensive, but worth every $million.
How about discovering enemy plans by psychic powers? Our astrologers are currently working on ways to trap psychic energy in a shiny box with impressive knobs on.
Any other ideas?
Ewan | February 19, 2010 - 08:19
I think you need to watch Clooney's film 'The Men Who Stare at Goats' The US Military has been up to this sort of nonsense for a long time. As for the British effort, my firm belief is that we didn't do any of this kind of thing because we couldn't afford it.
A little more research will tell you that anything you might think up, most likely has been at least discussed, if not implemented.
You may not have heard of the $5000 dollar hammer, a (possibly apocryphal) story about the military procurement process, where they bought a hammer - identical to an $8 hammer to be found at their equivalent of B&Q - at $5000 per item.
FTSE100 | February 19, 2010 - 10:14
This sort of thing just leaves me speechless, Ewan. Somebody, somewhere must make the decision. If it isn't bribery that motivates them, what does? Is it just another case of Fitting In? If you work amongst loonies, you behave nutty too just to show how normal you are? It's a mystery to me.
Ewan | February 19, 2010 - 10:31
A familiar justification for military spending can be found (badly written but still) here:
http://community.machinedesign.com/forums/thread/1301.aspx
I rarely write about the military, because most people just wouldn't believe it. It is full of wonderful characters and incredible people, but it's still mad. Catch 22 is pretty much on the button in my experience.
FTSE100 | February 19, 2010 - 10:54
It just doesn't work as a justification, Ewan, unless the suppliers are expected to carry out the tests. If you really did pay $5,000 apiece for a hammer, then had to do the tests yourself...
The military isn't the only organisation that insists on rigorous testing and qualification. I did some work for the petrochemical industry once, designing a piece of instrumentation that had to work in an explosive gas environment. The tiniest spark could set off a mighty explosion, blow up an oil refinery. The equipment had to be tested not only as a working unit, but under all possible fault conditions, to make sure no heat or spark could ever result from a malfunction. The testing was time consuming and expensive. The pricing reflected that, but wasn't utterly insane!
I think the difference could be simply that a company is spending its own money; the army is spending somebody else's.
Ewan | February 19, 2010 - 11:07
That's why this story doesn't stand up: however for much more hi-tech items, the company does pay for the testing. I've watched some of it. The point is the testing is done once or at least until the item is deemed acceptable, in the military the price is always on the unit, forever and a day, long after the costs have been recouped.
Yep, the military-industrial complex, Mr Vonnegut was right all along. In an ideal world such things wouldn't go on; but for the moment the captains of industry will simply claim they are creating wealth and employment.
In the RAF, quite junior officers are part of procurement teams, with no background in economics, and often a woolly knowledge of what the requirements are for whatever they trying to procure. To put it in the terms of the (imaginary?) hammer analogy, a foreman, who is a motor-mechanic by trade who has never bought a hammer, much less used one, is asked to find the perfect hammer to be used by a carpenter. Civil servants serve on these teams and committees and accept the advice of the so-called experts. Very good motor-mechanics though they might be, they are giving opinions based on no knowledge.
I'm sure you noticed in the news, that despite a hefty recent fine, BAe Systems declared a healthy profit.
maddan | February 19, 2010 - 13:01
Boots etc. make a healthy profit from selling homoeopathy and other woo to the general public, why should the military be any less credulous.
celticman | February 19, 2010 - 16:56
I've downed pints for bimbos, which is quite close, but I don't think it cost £30m, although it might have. I can't remember.
Chundar | February 20, 2010 - 04:28
I always thought Captain Blackadders description of what to do when you find a mine, throw yourself 50 feet into the air and scatter yourself over a wide area. Of course when it comes to finding them, nothing can replace good training and common sence,which is obviously lacking in the Millitary Intel.(yes an oxymoron and to quote Dave Mustaine "two words combined that cant make sence")