The magazine quotes Harvard astrophysicist Jonathan McDowell, who identifies it as the failure-prone Bulava ballistic missile, launched from a submarine. McDowell said the Russian Navy is in the right geographical position to launch it. He added that Russia has denied that it was their missile, but "this could be because another Bulava failure is a huge and embarrassing setback for their programme."

As for why the perfect spiral shape was created:

McDowell says the shape suggests the failure occurred well above the atmosphere. If it had occurred at lower altitudes, atmospheric drag would have caused the missile to fall quickly to Earth, creating a downward-pointing corkscrew pattern whose contrails would have been blown "this way and that" by wind, he told New Scientist.

The Bulava missile has three stages that fire in succession as it climbs up in altitude. "Probably what happened is that stages 1 and 2 did just fine and were discarded in turn, and then stage 3 started burning and almost immediately went wrong," McDowell says.

He says the third stage's nozzle, which directs the rocket's exhaust plume, may have fallen off or been punctured, causing the exhaust to come out sideways instead of out the back. "The sideways thrust sends the rocket into a spin, spewing flame as it goes," he says.

"If thrust was terminated right away, then you wouldn't see the spiral," he continues. "The unusual thing this time is that the missile was allowed to carry on firing for a bit after it went wrong."

UPDATE: Jonathan McDowell writes in to say:

The Russians did send out a 'notice to mariners' in advance warning of a rocket launch, and they have now (Dec 10) admitted that there was a launch of the Bulava and that the third stage failed. Hope that answers some of the comments on your page.

via New Scientist

About this particular advertisement for Los Alamos Labs (which worked on weapons systems), Prelinger writes:

The blue spot disrupts the conventionally romantic stylization of planetary or solar bodies by contracting the sphere to its minimal form. [Artist Oli] Sihvonen here seems to reference the early 20th century Russian constructivists, with the prolonged vertical angular shape aimed at the planetary circle. It brings to mind El Lissitzsky's constructivist graphic composition Beat Back the Whites with the Red Wedge which pioneered the use of juxtaposed triangle and circle as a graphic strategy to represent political conflict. I find it ironic that the graphic legacy of Communist action should be re-articulated and put into service - whether with or without the artists' sanction - in the service of American Cold War-era weapons and civil space technological programming.

You can see more of these advertisements, along with design-geek analysis, at Berg London. Or you can pre-order a copy of Prelinger's forthcoming (gorgeous) book, Another Science Fiction: Advertising the Space Race 1957-62.

If you aren't a fan already of the hardware hackers at Adafruit, this educational video will win you over. They've done a little research, and turned the DHS's million-dollar weapon into a $250 home electronics project called the Bedazzler.

This has got to be the greatest mad science project ever. If you build one of these, I fully expect you to shine it on your frenemies, take video, and post it here.

via Adafruit Industries (Thanks, Phil Torrone!)

According to USAFCENT Public Affairs:

The aircraft was flying a combat mission when positive control of the MQ-9 was lost. When the aircraft remained on a course that would depart Afghanistan's airspace, a US Air Force manned aircraft took proactive measures to down the Reaper in a remote area of northern Afghanistan.

So basically a jet with a human driver hunted down the robot-driven jet and killed it.

The Register's Lewis Page comments:

It wasn't clear from the US military announcement whether the erratic death-bot had turned on its masters and was planning an attack on critical US logistics bases located north of the Afghan border, or whether it had sickened of reaping hapless fleshies like corn and was hoping merely to escape. Alternatively the machine assassin may merely have succumbed to boredom or - just possibly - a mundane, non-anthropomorphic technical fault of some kind.

I'm voting for "sickened of reaping hapless fleshies."

via The Register

The Technion in Israel developed this "black hole," creating a well into which air flows faster than the speed of sound. That means that any sounds trying to pass through this moving air just can't keep up with the flow of the air into the "hole." Any sound wave in this air is like someone trying to run up the down escalator. But in this case, the down escalator is four times faster than the person can run.

This is achieved by two clouds of atoms (called a Bose-Einstein condensate) cooled to almost absolute zero, with a pool of very low density between them. Atoms can flow very rapidly, pretty much unhindered, into this area of low density at speeds over four times the speed of sound.

The result is a well into which all sound falls and cannot escape. Any sound that passes close enough to the "black hole" essentially ceases to be.

This sonic black hole offers scientists a method for testing their theories about black holes in general. But imagine putting one of these in your car instead of a muffler, or in a rocket. A battalion of armed soldiers equipped with a few devices like this could march anywhere silently. These sonic devices wouldn't just dampen the sound; they would virtually obliterate it. It raises the old question: if a tree falls on the Bose-Einstein condensate sonic black hole, does it make a sound?

Sonic Black Hole Traps Sound Waves via [Discovery News]
A sonic black hole in a density-inverted Bose-Einstein condensate via [arXiv]

Indeed, Wolverine is in some ways a version of Rambo, with its ripped hero who has been abandoned by his government and forced to go mercenary for justice. And who would deny seeing glints of Apocalypse Now in Watchmen's war scenes with the Comedian? The two movies even use the same music in their soundtracks, to much the same effect: Brooding 60s protest music hovers over scenes of state-sanctioned violence, reminding us that all oppression spawns a counterculture.

Though the last few years have seen the release of a few stately war movies like Letters from Iwo Jima and Flags of Our Fathers, as well as some serious gut-punchers like Black Hawk Down and Jarhead. But these films treat war as historical drama, or as pure clusterfuck. There is little of the classic war film here, where the horror and madness of combat (or imprisonment) become an occasion to tell stories of loyalty and tragic sacrifice.

But if you want those themes, you can find them in Wolverine, which despite its cheesiness does make an effort to give us the soldier's eye view. And although he skirts madness, Logan is clearly focused on finding justice. Likewise, Watchmen shows us the way soldiers (in this case, the superheroes who work for the US government) transcend the horror of their circumstances through loyalty. Like many war movies made after the 1970s, however, Watchmen takes a jaundiced view of the soldiering life. Just as we do in Apocalypse Now, we see how a hypocritical government drives its troops mad and turns loyalty into a joke.

And if you want a truly brilliant war movie, check out Iron Man. Its ironic triumphalism reminded me of the underrated movie Lord of War, about the rise and fall of a big time weapons smuggler. Iron Man takes us back to classic war films of the John Wayne variety, but with a 21st Century liberal twist. Iron Man revels in weapons technology, and at many points suggests that the US needs to get more involved in Middle East conflicts. But it also delivers a requisite "war is hell" message, giving its defense industry magnate a change of heart when he realizes that his mega-weapons are falling into the wrong hands. (There's actually a similar set of scenes in Lord of War, which are truly intense.)

While the most recent Hulk film was uneven and ultimately unsuccessful, I'd still claim it as another war film - similar in tone to Full Metal Jacket (though nowhere near as good). Unabashedly liberal, its the tale of a man swept up by a war machine that uses him and finally drives him completely insane.

Later this summer, expect more another superhero war movie: G.I. Joe is coming in August.

Why has the superhero movie come to be one of the only places we can find intriguing stories about war? Possibly it's just coincidence: the US is at war, and we're also in a phase where comic book movies are incredibly popular at the box office. So naturally we tell comic book war stories. Moreover, it's a lot safer to tell war stories when they're safely cloaked in a fantasy: Often, we can convey emotional truths more clearly when they're hidden behind a mask (perhaps a superhero mask).

I also think there's something to be said for the idea that war itself - filled with robots, autonomous vehicles, smart armor, and high tech surveillance devices - has become more like comic books. This comes from an idea that Peter Singer suggested in his new book Wired for War, which is about cutting-edge weapons tech. Singer writes that new weapons tech removes soldiers from the battlefield, turning warfare into what feels like a videogame. And turning some soldiers into people with superpowers.

Perhaps, as combat technologies advance, we'll it will become almost impossible to distinguish between comic book movies and what used to be war movies. I wonder what we'll lose when that happens.

In a recent press release, the company announced that they had created the most powerful laser ray at 105 kilowatts, paving the way for energy weapons use in combat. Lasers themselves have been used in combat before, but for the purposes of accurate targeting, rather than directly attacking a target.

According to sources, the 100 kilowatt threshold is the level at which military grade lasers can be powerful enough to be useful. And the military has plenty of ways in which lasers can be useful. Wired's Danger Room says Boeing has a contract to outfit a truck with a laser, while Raytheon is set to design a mortar elimination system, and there are undoubtedly other systems in the works.

Laser systems provide what Northrop Grumman calls power scaling, which might very well change a number of ways in which combat can be undertaken. The theory behind this is that power levels can be adjusted for specific threats - taking down an enemy bomber will have different requirements than attacking an enemy combatant. This is certainly something that we have seen in the realm of science fiction: "Set for stun".

Does this mean that we'll see combat troops in the Middle East outfitted with ray guns and laser cannons? Unlikely, as there is still a lot to be worked out with this technology, such as making it more portable and making sure that it won't overheat, as well as making sure that you don't have to replace the battery every other shot. But, it is a significant step towards that future.

Yesterday at the Etech Conference in San Jose, chemist Christa Hockensmith explained how she got interested explosion science, and what researchers at the cutting edge are doing to make exothermic reactions work for you.

Hockensmith runs the chemistry lab at New Mexico Tech's Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center (EMRTC), an enormous, outdoor facility in Socorro, NM, where researchers have the space to test massive explosions in relative safety. The innovations that come out of Hockensmith's chemistry research are all eventually turned into giant balls of fire and tremendous shockwaves in the mountains above her lab.

Often, explosion science starts with a specific question from a company or research lab. "Somebody will call me on the phone and say, 'Can you help me with this?'" Hockensmith said, then added with a laugh, "And of course if they have the money, we always do." Often companies will partner with EMRTC, sponsoring research that's relevant to products they create. Recently, a company came to Hockensmith asking whether she could create an "explosive-aided polymer." The company makes chemicals that are used in industrial manufacturing, but those chemicals must be encased in a protective polymer shell until the exact moment they are needed. So Hockensmith and her team created a way to set off a tiny, focused explosion that would crack the polymer shell at the instant that the chemical is added to the manufacturing process.

They also created a similar kind of explosion for use in plastic containers for medical supplies. She explained:

Shipping containers for medical supplies are often plastic, and get deformed in the shipping process. So we put small explosive charge in them which creates enough inert gas to reshape the container. A filter protects the medical supplies from contamination, and the inert gas prevents leakage and loss of sterility.

And then there are the untested ideas that Hockensmith is just starting to think about, like how extremely tiny explosions at the molecular level might be used in medical research. She mused:

We make almost 200,000 industrial diamonds per year with explosions, so what why not work on tiny explosions that could destroy tumors, or unblock arteries? We could actually make them implosions, so that they wouldn't cause bleeding.

EMRTC, where Hockensmith works, is trying to get young people interested in the science of explosions, too. For the first time this year they'll be offering "Explosives Camp" for high schoolers interested in pursuing science and engineering topics related to explosions. Explosives Camp will run from June 21-28 this summer at New Mexico Tech. If you want more information, you can mail the camp directors.

Until now, the idea of the use of robots on the battlefield has been the stuff of science fiction - which is alluded to heavily throughout Singer's analysis. He and the subjects he interviews have learned about warfare from science fiction. Indeed, the book opens with a reference to the current version of Battlestar Galactica, and quickly follows with a number of references to Star Wars, Star Trek, Terminator, the Matrix, and the works of Isaac Asimov.

Looking at the promotional blurbs for this book, one would expect this to be a fairly straightforward concept - an examination of the rise of the use of robots in warfare, some of the history and how this is impacting the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The assumption fell impressively flat as I worked my way through the book, because not only is the concept of robotic warfare covered, but Singer also goes beyond the battlefields and world of today and leaps forward into the next twenty five years. While at times very alarmist, Singer paints a frightening view of the future.

At the beginning of the current Middle East conflicts post-9/11, the US military entered war as a technologically advanced army, but it did so without the use of robotics. Singer traces the beginnings of the introduction of such robots as the now-familiar Predator Drone and the Packbot, among others, from their conception on the drawing board to their gaining attention from the military to their widespread use today on the battlefields. Singer interviewed hundreds of people for this book, from the technicians who built and repair the robots, to the Privates and Sergeants who deploy and depend upon them to the ranking officers who oversee their use against enemy forces. In doing so, Singer outlines an impressive sub-story of the perceptions of warfare on the part of the United States, going back to earlier wars.

To some extent, it's unclear where Singer falls when it comes to robotics. On one hand, he demonstrates just how we have come to depend upon the intelligence and abilities that robots offer our fighting forces. On the other hand, we see a trend of a highly technical and advanced military, with a public that is increasingly withdrawing from the necessary pains of warfare. We are, he worries, becoming inured to the horrors of war because robots allow us to distance ourselves from the action.

However, there is also an argument to be made that warfare has always tended towards distancing soldiers from the action. In conflicts past, massed infantry forces would clash, with horrendous injuries and trauma ensuing. As time progressed, warfare became far more distant - the introduction of the Long Bow, for example, allowed English archers to hit targets from further away, transforming the battlefield from a massed infantry and cavalry force to one that was capable of striking from a distance. The same goes for the introduction of gunpowder, with allowed for an entire revolution in how militaries were organized and trained. The Civil War, Napoleonic War and World War I all introduced, to varying degrees, an element of mechanization to warfare, which further placed warfare away from the soldiers, who could now hold off battalions with an entrenched squad and a machine gun. Still further up the timeline, with the introduction of airpower, theorists became increasingly convinced that warfare would become even more impersonal, as militaries could bomb enemy civilian populations with little risk to their own forces before ending a conflict. While this turned out to be not the case, it is interesting to note that with the further introduction of technology to a battlefield, war has reached the ultimate impersonal level, as our own soldiers can direct robotic forces into danger.

While robots are extremely advantageous in combat, they have the effect of sanitizing warfare, while enraging our enemies abroad. I recall a documentary that I watched by New York film maker Eugene Jarecki, Why We Fight, which noted that with the numerous advances in warfare, it becomes far easier to wage, and in a scenario where soldiers are able to fight with lessened risk, this has frightening possibilities. What would happen if a military force could field an army of robots? Singer notes the scary possibility that in today's media-rich environment, there is the possibility that people will go to war because there are few immediate consequences.

Singer also does not ignore the time-honored notion of a robotic rebellion, a scenario where robots realize that they are able to do far better than we can, and seek to become a dominant race on the planet. This has happened in countless films and movies, and at a couple of points, soldiers and scientists note that they are working on robots that could someday overthrow humanity. While his subjects say this in jest, there is an element of truth to it. Singer notes several instances of robotic systems going haywire, from a robot in a car factory killing a worker by mistake, to South African automated gun turret suffering from a computer glitch that caused it to open fire on soldiers during a series of wargames, killing several before it ran out of ammunition. Singer also examines the increasing influence that technology has on our lives, from Play Stations to iPods, and how these systems have influenced soldiers on the ground. Playing videogames generally helps soldiers adapt very quickly to robotic systems, to the point where controls are modeled after gaming controls.

Military historians often talk about three generations of warfare: First generation, which includes massed manpower as a dominant element; second generation, which includes firearms; and third generation, maneuver warfare, which links coordinated manpower and mechanized forces, and is widely in use today. In the past two decades, there has been much debate over the possibility of a fourth generation of warfare emerging, largely thought to be a sort of urban warfare that pits highly trained specialist-soldiers against irregular forces.

However, while observing the trends of the past conflicts from the Gulf War, Somalia, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan, I would propose that Singer's strength in this book is that he's defining a fourth generation of warfare, characterized by the use of computers on the battlefield. (Urban and guerilla warfare have been in use since antiquity.) Singer notes that in addition to robotic forces, the lines of communication between soldiers and their chain of command is changing with the introduction of computers. This essentially lifts the so-called fog of war, and gives battlefield commanders an unprecedented view of the battlefield, aided by the use of robotic drones and sensors. This brings forth an entirely new set of problems with the existing chains of command.

Singer and his interview subjects predict that the floodgates have opened, and there is essentially no turning back at this stage. Within the next twenty-five years, human soldiers will be fighting alongside humanoid robots, which will have extraordinary accuracy and initiative in how they react to enemy combatants. While we are certainly nowhere near that level of sophistication yet, the bulding blocks are already there: Robotic turrets shoot down mortar shells with impressive accuracy, and sensors can now tap into body language and other subtle elements to predict actions.

With issues such as global warming, fluctuations in the world economy, and an increasingly high-tech, worker-unfriendly world, Singer predicts that the future will only bring more conflict, and the U.S. will be involved to some degree. It is in this environment that robots will continue to fight for us.

Robots may not take over the planet, but there will be machines designed to be very good at killing humans. While there might be soldiers controlling elements of these systems, there is plenty of room for error. Still, if the future Singer predicts comes to pass, I am somewhat ready to hand over the keys to robot overlords - on the condition that we're allowed to keep our entertainment and food. They certainly can't do any worse than we have during our time on the planet.

Wired for War via Amazon

Image of PackBot from PackBot Page, and Predator Drone via jamesdale10 on Flickr.

The experiment, dubbed the Future Immersive Training Environment (FITE) Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD), will be, according to the ONR:

A critical, one-of-a-kind futuristic training program in which warfighters would train here at home in preparation for the types of small, urban and borderless conflicts that have spread throughout the middle east and other regions of the world . . . [it will be] a realistic, live-action virtual environment, that provides warfighter trainees feedback that allows for combined arms integration.

Apparently it will emphasize the "human" side of warfare, which is an odd assertion to make about a computer simulation.

Navy researcher George Solhan said the goal is to create "physically and mentally adaptable joint warriors winning and surviving in all phases of warfare." It's fascinating that as warfare becomes more virtual, via robots and UAVs, training also becomes more virtual. I'm curious about how Solhan believes a videogame-style simulation will create "physically adaptable" warriors - is this game sort of Guitar Hero-ish, or Dance Dance Revolutiony with a foot pad?

If $36 million sounds like a huge budget to you, consider that Grand Theft Auto IV cost $100 million. Final Fantasy XII cost $35 million.

SOURCE: Office of Naval Research

Image via US Dept of Defense

UPDATE: What might this virtual reality system look like? It may be similar to an immersive training program that the Navy created last year. Here's a description of that one:

Trainees use their regular tactical equipment, but weapons are modified to shoot special effects small arms marking system (SESAMS) rounds, which are similar in concept to paintball rounds. Trainees and role players use paintball masks for added protection. As the trainees move from room to room, they may encounter live role players or virtual characters. Occasionally, pyrotechnics are used to increase realism.

Read more about that via the US Navy. (Thanks to commenter Ghost in the Machine.)

In a terrifically intriguing - and occasionally frustrating - interview with Mother Jones, Singer says:

There was an editorial in the Washington Post this month that talked about how we should do something in Darfur with unmanned machines. Now, let's leave aside the irony of a humanitarian intervention done by an inhuman machine. What we overlook too often is that military operations are not simply throwaway commitments, even with machines. They involve you in something that is complex and long-term on the ground.

Read the whole interview to see what he says about how the military uses science fiction as an inspiration for their war machines, and to get a better sense of why Singer is worried about deploying robots instead of humans in war zones.

Should You Fear the Killer Robots? [via Mother Jones]

New Scientist has a nice gallery up featuring some of the machines the F.B.I. is deploying to Washington, D.C. According to Subtopia's Bryan Finoki, "DC officials fessed to dolling out roughly $50m, while Maryland and Virginia both have pitched in another $12-16m each."

While the robot waits patiently above, another bomb squad vehicle carries this explosion containment device. Stick the bomb inside, and hopefully it will go off without doing as much damage. Check out more mobile defense labs in this gallery.

Wired's Noah Shachtman has a great post on this over at Danger Room, explaining how it fits into the Air Force's broader strategy to engage with people online and "counter negative opinions" about the armed services. I applaud the military for encouraging its officers and enlisted people to communicate more online - nothing wrong with using blogs for public debate. But there is just something FUBAR about how the Air Force can turn anything into a rigid and overly-complicated flow chart - even the act of chatting informally online.

via Danger Room

According to the Washington Post:

Not everyone in Afghanistan's hinterlands had heard of the drug, leading to some awkward encounters when Americans delicately attempted to explain its effects, taking care not to offend their hosts' religious sensitivities.

Such was the case with the 60-year-old chieftain who received the four pills from a U.S. operative. According to the retired operative who was there, the man was a clan leader in southern Afghanistan who had been wary of Americans — neither supportive nor actively opposed. The man had extensive knowledge of the region and his village controlled key passages through the area. U.S. forces needed his cooperation and worked hard to win it, the retired operative said.

After a long conversation through an interpreter, the retired operator began to probe for ways to win the man's loyalty. A discussion of the man's family and many wives provided inspiration. Once it was established that the man was in good health, the pills were offered and accepted.

Four days later, when the Americans returned, the gift had worked its magic, the operative recalled.

"He came up to us beaming," the official said. "He said, 'You are a great man.' "

"And after that we could do whatever we wanted in his area."

[via Washington Post]

Currently, the flying sub only exists as a set of design objectives issued by DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency). They want a craft that can arrive at a target via air, hang out for a while as surface boat, and disappear stealthily beneath the waves. According to the official request for proposals:

"By combining the beneficial characteristics and operating modes of each platform, DARPA hopes to develop a craft that will significantly enhance the United States tactical advantage in coastal insertion missions."

The proposed craft would hold eight soldiers plus all their gear and could support them as a floating surface craft for 72 hours. It would have a 1,000 mile aerial range and a 12 mile submerged range. It would more accurately be called a submersible aircraft, as an aircraft design can be pressurized and submerged far more easily than a heavy submarine could be made to fly.

Oddly enough, Military.com points out that this idea has been floating around for decades, but no one's ever even finished a prototype. Here's an artist's rendering of a design from the 1960s: Images by: DARPA/AP.

Flying Submarine or Submerging Seaplane? [Military.com]

The National Intelligence Council coordinates research at all US intelligence agencies, and the newly-released report is called "Global Trends 2025: A World Transformed." When the quarter-century rolls around, this report predicts, the power of Western-style democracy may have declined. The outcome of this shift is murky, but one thing seems clear. Governments will be playing a greater role in steering economies.

Says the report:

No single outcome seems preordained: the Western model of economic liberalism, democracy and secularism, for example, which many assumed to be inevitable, may lose its lustre – at least in the medium term . . . Today wealth is moving not just from West to East but is concentrating more under state control [in China and Russia for example] . . . In the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis, the state's role in the economy may be gaining more appeal throughout the world.

More fascinating, the report predicts "the multiplicity of influential actors and distrust of vast power means less room for the US to call the shots without the support of strong partnerships." You read that right. US intelligence agencies are suggesting the US can't "call the shots" without help from other nations.

The report also includes a science fictional moment: A letter written by an imaginary president in 2020, after global warming has whipped up a mega-hurricane in Manhattan. The president compares the scene to World War II newsreels, with the European devastation of that era transplanted to New York City.

Global Trends 2025: A World Transformed [PDF] (via the UK Guardian)

First of all, the KILLSTRIKE is 400 pounds, so it's not really even luggable. You're going to need another machine to carry this "mobile" unit around. And much worse, it's one of those "batteries not included" kind of deals. Turns out, according to Northrop Grumman chief Dan Wildt:

Combined with advanced electro optical and/or infrared sensors, the FIRESTRIKE™ laser can provide self-defense [or] precision strike capabilities.

Oh, OK — so now I need "advanced infrared sensors" to make this laser burn out bug eyes. What else do I need?

Apparently, you really need about eight KILLSTRIKES to really have a proper laser blast, because one only delivers a measly 15 kilowatts. According to The Register:

The firm has said that at least eight of these can be linked up to get a proper 100 kilowatt beam, generally seen as the threshold for a true battlefield weapon. Beam quality, for the laser aficionados among those reading, is listed at "nominally 1.5 times the diffraction limit".

Apparently you can link them using ethernet, which is at least one thing I won't need to buy in order to have a real laser blaster. I've got tons of ethernet cable lying around. Now I just need eight KILLSTRIKES and an advanced infrared sensor, and I'll be ready to face the danger.

Weaponized Raygun [via The Register]

The principle behind this tech is similar to the videogame headset you may have read about, as well as that voiceless phone-call experiment. “It will take a lot of research, and a lot of time,” says Mike D’Zmura, the lead scientist on the project at University of California at Irvine, “but there are also a lot of commercial applications, not just military applications.” Ah, but it’s the latter that provides the most fascinating, if alarming, potential. Allow us to take a look back at a few previous pipedreams and developments spearheaded by the government in the field of, um, ESP science.

LSD
The infamous Project MKULTRA, run by the CIA in the ’50s and ’60s, tapped into an array of drugs—heroin, weed, speed, shrooms—to illegally test its unwitting subjects. But it was the use of its most famous hallucinogen, LSD, that’s most captured the public’s mind.

THE GAY BOMB
According to the BBC, the Department of Defense had a brief flirtation with a six-year, $7.5 million project to craft aphrodisiacs that would embarrass enemy troops into submission. Although it sounds like some ignorant, paranoid, ridiculous McCarthy-era thinking, this was proposed circa 1994.

THE VOICE OF GOD
The mythic sonic projector directly aims its sound at just one person, who can receive a secret message or just go bananas from hearing voices. And it’s indeed becoming a reality, if that Paranormal State billboard stunt in Manhattan last year is any indication.

HANDS-OFF HYPNOSIS
The Army posted a “Voice-to-Skull” mockup on its site in May…then surreptitiously took it down. However, a sharp-shooting U.K. web page managed to capture the image, which appears to be plans for a “neuro-electromagnetic devise” that could, like the Voice of God, beam focused sounds through thin air to hypnotize its target. Curious.

TELEPATHIC RAY GUN
A report earlier this year revealed that the Army hoped (hopes?) to develop non-lethal weapons that discharge electromagnetic pulses that cause seizures as well as microwaves that transmit words into your ear and/or induce fevers.

Honorary, Tangential Mentions...

RAY GUNS OF PAIN
Taser, you got served. This device would shoot a non-lethal, invisible beam at an unsupecting victim, which is bound to fuck with the mind. But why take our word for it? Check the footage.

SLEEP-NO-MORE DRUGS
The use of non-addictive drugs like Modafinil/Provigil in undisclosed doses allows soldiers to supersize their ability to go without sleep for 40 hours at a time.

LSD image courtesy of romanedirisinghe

The French government provided the pope with an autonomous aerial detail that detects threats on the ground and can call on countermeasures:

Aviation Week reports that Eagle-1 SIDM autonomous surveillance platforms orbited on high above Lourdes, providing what is often profanely referred to in military circles as the "god's eye view" of the surrounding terrain - and the ability to call down terrifying hammerblows of destruction from the skies using laser target-designation systems. Batteries of Crotale air-defence missiles were also on standby in the event of any impious intrusion being mounted into the Supreme Pontiff's heavenly exclusion zone.

For land-based protection, sadly, Pope Benedict will still have to rely on his human bodyguards and bulletproof cell.

Pope watched over by flying robots during Lourdes visit [The Register]

Writes Shachtman:

The fictional plot [where terrorists use an MMO to plan attacks] was originally developed by Dan Arey, for the Director of National Intelligence's Summer Hard Problems workshop, or SHARP. And its details are a little fuzzy. The terminology doesn't match World of Warcraft lingo, all that precisely. There is no "White Keep" in World of Warcraft; "Dragon Fire" is a spell in EverQuest, the old-school role-playing game, not WoW.

True enough. But what about the simple point that terrorists of the sort the US government is concerned about could probably just meet in person to plan this stuff. Or use cell phones. Or hotmail, which is what the attackers used on 9/11.

Researcher Conjures World of Warcraft Terror Plot [via Danger Room]