PDA

View Full Version : Damn Russkies!


penchief
07-14-2007, 03:05 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19757035/

MOSCOW - Russia on Saturday suspended its participation in a key European arms control treaty that governs deployment of troops on the continent, the Kremlin said, a move that threatened to further aggravate Moscow’s already tense relations with the West.

President Vladimir Putin signed a decree suspending Russia’s participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty due to “extraordinary circumstances ... which affect the security of the Russian Federation and require immediate measures,” the Kremlin said in a statement.

Putin has in the past threatened to freeze his country’s compliance with the treaty, accusing the United States and its NATO partners of undermining regional stability with U.S. plans for a missile defense system in former Soviet bloc countries in Eastern Europe.

Under the moratorium, Russia will halt inspections and verifications of its military sites by NATO countries and will no longer limit the number of its conventional weapons, the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

The White House reacted with disappointment to Russia’s decision.

“We’re disappointed Russia has suspended its participation for now, but we’ll continue to have discussions with them in the coming months on the best way to proceed in this area — that is in the interest of all parties involved and provides for security in Europe,” Gordon Johndroe, a spokeman for the National Security Council, said in a statement.

In Brussels, NATO spokesman James Appathurai condemned the decision. “NATO regrets this decision by the Russian Federation. It is a step in the wrong direction,” Appathurai said.

The treaty, between Russian and NATO members, was signed in 1990 and amended in 1999 to reflect changes since the breakup of the Soviet Union, adding the requirement that Moscow withdraw troops from the former Soviet republics of Moldova and Georgia.

Russia has ratified the amended version, but the United States and other NATO members have refused to do so until Russia completely withdraws.

‘Situation contradicts Russia’s interests’
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia could no longer tolerate a situation where it was complying with the treaty but its partners were not, and he expressed hope that Russia’s move would induce Western nations to commit to the updated treaty.

“Such a situation contradicts Russia’s interests,” Peskov told The Associated Press. “Russia continues to expect that other nations that have signed the CFE will fulfill their obligations.”

The treaty is seen as a key element in maintaining stability in Europe. It establishes limitations on countries’ deployment of tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, attack helicopters and combat aircraft.

Withdrawal from the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty would allow Moscow to build up forces near its borders.

But Russian military analysts have said the possibility of suspending participation in the treaty was a symbolic rising of ante in the missile shield showdown more than a sign of impending military escalation.

‘It will seriously spoil relations’
Pavel Felgenhauer, a Moscow-based defense analyst, said the moratorium probably won’t result in any major buildup of heavy weaponry in European Russia. Russia has no actual interest in the highly costly build up of forces because it faces no real military threat and has no plans to launch an attack of its won, he said.

But, he said, it could mean an end to onsite inspections and verifications by NATO countries, which many European nations rely on to keep track of Russian deployments.

For the United States, the moratorium will mostly be a symbolic gesture, he said, since the U.S. has an extensive intelligence network that keeps close track of Russian forces. But it will still be seen as another unfriendly move in Washington, Felgenhauer predicted.

“This will be a major irritant,” he said. “It will seriously spoil relations. The kind of soothing effect from the last summit with Putin and (President) Bush will evaporate swiftly,” he said referring a summit between the leaders earlier this month at the Bush family home in Kennebunkport, Maine.

Felgenhauer also said that there is no provision under the treaty for a moratorium, suggesting Russia was acting illegally. “This is basically non-compliance, and this is an illegal move,” he said.

noa
07-14-2007, 03:12 PM
We must not let the Russkies sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.

penchief
07-14-2007, 03:15 PM
We must not let the Russkies sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.

Watch out for the toothpaste.

go bowe
07-14-2007, 03:21 PM
why do the russians love the terrorists but hate america?

this will embolden (is tha even a word?) the terrorists and discourage our allies (do we still have any allies?)...

Adept Havelock
07-14-2007, 08:45 PM
We ignore treaties we signed with them. Why should we expect them to honor treaties they signed?

We must not let the Russkies sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.

ROFL

Sir, General Jack D. Ripper is on the line.

penchief
07-14-2007, 08:55 PM
We ignore treaties we signed with them. Why should we expect them to honor treaties they signed?

You and I recongnize that but I doubt very many people do. Especially the Bush apolosgists.

Ugly Duck
07-14-2007, 10:41 PM
Russia isn't too happy about Bushron's plan to put short-range nukes in Poland. Can you imagine the reaction here at home if Russia put short-range nukes in Cuba? We'd go ballistic!

patteeu
07-15-2007, 10:30 AM
We ignore treaties we signed with them. Why should we expect them to honor treaties they signed?



ROFL

Sir, General Jack D. Ripper is on the line.

I don't doubt you, but I'm curious. Which treaties are we ignoring?

Adept Havelock
07-15-2007, 10:32 AM
I don't doubt you, but I'm curious. Which treaties are we ignoring?


The ABM treaty of 1972 comes immediately to mind.

StcChief
07-15-2007, 10:40 AM
Russia isn't too happy about Bushron's plan to put short-range nukes in Poland. Can you imagine the reaction here at home if Russia put short-range nukes in Cuba? We'd go ballistic!
The fact the Cuba exists as a communist country now amazes me.

patteeu
07-15-2007, 11:32 AM
The ABM treaty of 1972 comes immediately to mind.

IIRC, we abrogated according to the terms of that treaty so that isn't an example.

Adept Havelock
07-15-2007, 11:48 AM
IIRC, we abrogated according to the terms of that treaty so that isn't an example.


We signed a treaty. If "abrogated according to the terms of that treaty" means we simply informed the Russians we would no longer consider ourselves bound by it (as we did in 2001), I fail to see how it is not an example.

Perhaps it's a treaty that we ignored for a purpose you support, and that's why you don't wish to see it as a valid example. :shrug:

Besides, it strikes me as a bit fishy that the Executive can simply decide to dismiss a treaty that Congress ratified as the Law of the Land. But that's another issue, and I'm no constitutional law buff. I can also understand the executive argument considering the constitutions stance on Foreign Policy.

Ugly Duck
07-15-2007, 12:16 PM
The fact the Cuba exists as a communist country now amazes me.

Yeah, but we'd also go ballistic if the Russians put short-range nukes in Mexico. In a similar vein, you can kinda see why the Russians aren't too happy about us putting them in Poland.

ChiefaRoo
07-15-2007, 03:35 PM
Yeah, but we'd also go ballistic if the Russians put short-range nukes in Mexico. In a similar vein, you can kinda see why the Russians aren't too happy about us putting them in Poland.

Listen dummy. We have no plans to put short range nukes anywhere in the former Eastern block. We're talking about putting radar stations and interceptor missiles there. Figure it out.

Ugly Duck
07-15-2007, 04:45 PM
Listen dummy. We have no plans to put short range nukes anywhere in the former Eastern block. We're talking about putting radar stations and interceptor missiles there. Figure it out.

Oh.

heh....

patteeu
07-16-2007, 06:36 AM
We signed a treaty. If "abrogated according to the terms of that treaty" means we simply informed the Russians we would no longer consider ourselves bound by it (as we did in 2001), I fail to see how it is not an example.

Perhaps it's a treaty that we ignored for a purpose you support, and that's why you don't wish to see it as a valid example. :shrug:

Besides, it strikes me as a bit fishy that the Executive can simply decide to dismiss a treaty that Congress ratified as the Law of the Land. But that's another issue, and I'm no constitutional law buff. I can also understand the executive argument considering the constitutions stance on Foreign Policy.

If the Congress and the states amend the constitution using the amendment process defined in the constitution, we don't consider that to be the same as simply ignoring the founding document and doing what we want to do. The same is true for treaties. When we negotiate a specific process for ending a treaty arrangement and then use that process for that which it was designed, we are not ignoring the treaty, we are complying with it. That's why it's not a valid example.

Perhaps you should leave your high horse in the stable when the topic moves from Voltaire to a subject you apparently don't really understand. :shrug:

Adept Havelock
07-16-2007, 09:22 AM
If the Congress and the states amend the constitution using the amendment process defined in the constitution, we don't consider that to be the same as simply ignoring the founding document and doing what we want to do. The same is true for treaties. When we negotiate a specific process for ending a treaty arrangement and then use that process for that which it was designed, we are not ignoring the treaty, we are complying with it. That's why it's not a valid example.

Perhaps you should leave your high horse in the stable when the topic moves from Voltaire to a subject you apparently don't really understand. :shrug:


I see nothing in the text of the treaty that shows a mechanism for ending it in this manner, as you allege. Perhaps you have seen a part of the treaty that I have not. If so, a link would be appreciated.

My point is primarily (as I think you are well aware) that if we just decide to ignore a treaty, I think it severely undercuts our ability to legitimately criticize Russia for doing the same thing. :shrug:

As for my high horse LMAO. How about this: You've been on a high horse about the Iraq clusterf**k for quite some time, and it's quite clear you really don't understand either. I'll stop if you will. Taking the shot is OK with me though. After the last week or so, I can certainly understand the massive sand accumulations you are dealing with. ;)

pikesome
07-16-2007, 10:42 AM
I see nothing in the text of the treaty that shows a mechanism for ending it in this manner, as you allege. Perhaps you have seen a part of the treaty that I have not. If so, a link would be appreciated.

My point is primarily (as I think you are well aware) that if we just decide to ignore a treaty, I think it severely undercuts our ability to legitimately criticize Russia for doing the same thing. :shrug:



Text: U.S. Diplomatic Notes on ABM Treaty

(Nov. 13: Sent to Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine) (440)

State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher released the text of the
diplomatic notes on the U.S. decision to withdraw from the 1972
Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty which were sent to Russia,
Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine on December 13:

(begin text)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
December 14, 2001

Statement by Richard Boucher, Spokesman

TEXT OF DIPLOMATIC NOTES SENT TO
RUSSIA, BELARUS, KAZAKHSTAN AND THE UKRAINE

On December 13, 2001

The following is the text of diplomatic notes sent to Russia, Belarus,
Kazakhstan, and the Ukraine on December 13, 2001:

The Embassy of the United States of America has the honor to refer to
the Treaty between the United States of America and the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic
Missile Systems signed at Moscow May 26, 1972.

Article XV, paragraph 2, gives each Party the right to withdraw from
the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the
subject matter of the treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests.

The United States recognizes that the Treaty was entered into with the
USSR, which ceased to exist in 1991. Since then, we have entered into
a new strategic relationship with Russia that is cooperative rather
than adversarial, and are building strong relationships with most
states of the former USSR.

Since the Treaty entered into force in 1972, a number of state and
non-state entities have acquired or are actively seeking to acquire
weapons of mass destruction. It is clear, and has recently been
demonstrated, that some of these entities are prepared to employ these
weapons against the United States. Moreover, a number of states are
developing ballistic missiles, including long-range ballistic
missiles, as a means of delivering weapons of mass destruction. These
events pose a direct threat to the territory and security of the
United States and jeopardize its supreme interests. As a result, the
United States has concluded that it must develop, test, and deploy
anti-ballistic missile systems for the defense of its national
territory, of its forces outside the United States, and of its friends
and allies.

Pursuant to Article XV, paragraph 2, the United States has decided
that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of the Treaty
have jeopardized its supreme interests. Therefore, in the exercise of
the right to withdraw from the Treaty provided in Article XV,
paragraph 2, the United States hereby gives notice of its withdrawal
from the Treaty. In accordance with the terms of the Treaty,
withdrawal will be effective six months from the date of this notice.

(end text)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)


Link (http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/abmt/news/diplomatic121401.htm)

Adept Havelock
07-16-2007, 10:49 AM
Thank you kindly, Pikesome. Much appreciated.

I guess I'm just wondering...considering this from the CFE treaty:

Article XIX. Point 2: Each State Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. A State Party intending to withdraw shall give notice of its decision to do so to the Depositary and to all other States Parties. Such notice shall be given at least 150 days prior to the intended withdrawal from this Treaty. It shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the State Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

Why is the US so "disappointed"? Looks to me like it's no different from our decision in the ABM treaty.

Then there's the defense analyst who thinks Russia is acting illegally? Looks like this gives everyone an out. :shrug:

pikesome
07-16-2007, 10:52 AM
Thank you kindly, Pikesome. Much appreciated.

The original text contains barely more than in this letter. It seems so vague as to let either side out at any time for the weakest of reasons. I would guess that it made the whole treaty a promise to give 6 month notice and little more.

Adept Havelock
07-16-2007, 10:58 AM
The original text contains barely more than in this letter. It seems so vague as to let either side out at any time for the weakest of reasons. I would guess that it made the whole treaty a promise to give 6 month notice and little more.

Looks like it's the same for the CFE treaty as well. Makes the agreement rather pointless, IMO.

pikesome
07-16-2007, 11:04 AM
Looks like it's the same for the CFE treaty as well. Makes the agreement rather pointless, IMO.

I would bet that if you went back and looked at most arms treaties you'd find the same sort of thing. No county likes to tie it's hands permanently, they also like to have a diplomatic "out" so the treaty can be discounted "legally". That's one of the reasons Bush and Co. doing this doesn't get me too upset, more countries have nuke capability and we have no treaty with them. And aren't likely to get it even if we thought they might honor it. This does, really, fit the "jeopardized its supreme interests" clause.

Adept Havelock
07-16-2007, 11:30 AM
I would bet that if you went back and looked at most arms treaties you'd find the same sort of thing. No county likes to tie it's hands permanently, they also like to have a diplomatic "out" so the treaty can be discounted "legally". That's one of the reasons Bush and Co. doing this doesn't get me too upset, more countries have nuke capability and we have no treaty with them. And aren't likely to get it even if we thought they might honor it. This does, really, fit the "jeopardized its supreme interests" clause.


I certainly wouldn't dispute any of that. I'm just a little uneasy about BMD because of the destabilizing effect it has on the MAD doctrine. At the same time, I can also recognize it's utility...provided we can get the system to work. Hopefully we don't invest billions only to find when we really need it we've purchased and deployed Sgt.York Mk 2.

pikesome
07-16-2007, 11:47 AM
I certainly wouldn't dispute any of that. I'm just a little uneasy about BMD because of the destabilizing effect it has on the MAD doctrine. At the same time, I can also recognize it's utility...provided we can get the system to work. Hopefully we don't invest billions only to find when we really need it we've purchased and deployed Sgt.York Mk 2.

A government program that doesn't waste money? Riiiiight. Still, N Korea or India or Pakistan or the new nutbags waiting in the wings only need to launch one to hurt us. That's what worries me, the USSR knew that MAD was the only result of using nukes and they weren't keen on that. Someone who is willing to strap TnT to their chest and walk into a cafe isn't going to be scarred off by MAD. These are the people I hope the BMD is looking to stop.

Adept Havelock
07-16-2007, 11:53 AM
A government program that doesn't waste money? Riiiiight. Still, N Korea or India or Pakistan or the new nutbags waiting in the wings only need to launch one to hurt us. That's what worries me, the USSR knew that MAD was the only result of using nukes and they weren't keen on that. Someone who is willing to strap TnT to their chest and walk into a cafe isn't going to be scarred off by MAD. These are the people I hope the BMD is looking to stop.

Every govt. program has waste. That said, I'd hope the BMD development was a little closer to the Bradley IFV project than Sgt. York. Bradley cost even more than Sgt. York, but at least we got a damned decent system out of it.

The main reason I think MAD still applies is that their rhetoric aside, the nutter in Iran really wants to be the leader of a new Caliphite, which is impossible if the leading nation of that Caliphite is a sheet of glass. NK is forced to be a rational actor by China. As you said though, there will always be others waiting in the wings.

I'd agree that's who it's looking to stop. It's certainly more realistic than Reagan's nonsensical "Star Wars" program. An ABM system designed to handle thousands of incoming missiles, and an even greater number of warheads? I think someone was Chasing the Dragon when they dreamed that up.

However, I'm far more concerned about a nuke being delivered in a shipping container or a Buick than I am one coming in on an ICBM.

pikesome
07-16-2007, 12:16 PM
The main reason I think MAD still applies is that their rhetoric aside, the nutter in Iran really wants to be the leader of a new Caliphite, which is impossible if the leading nation of that Caliphite is a sheet of glass. NK is forced to be a rational actor by China. As you said though, there will always be others waiting in the wings.
I don't worry so much that any of the nuke govs will lob a missile or two, I worry that their instability will let a real nutjob get the "football". A scenario along the lines of Bin Ladin's supporters coup Pakistan and launch a nuke is not far fetched and not a case where MAD would be a real good deterrent. MAD requires a certain amount of self-interest and at least some of the people who don't like us have demonstrated a lack of it.

I'd agree that's who it's looking to stop. It's certainly more realistic than Reagan's nonsensical "Star Wars" program. An ABM system designed to handle thousands of incoming missiles, and an even greater number of warheads? I think someone was Chasing the Dragon when they dreamed that up.
It seemed to scare the Russians though when we started pursuing it. I think that was the goal, force the USSR into a game of "who has the deeper pockets".

However, I'm far more concerned about a nuke being delivered in a shipping container or a Buick than I am one coming in on an ICBM.

Me too but the defenses against shipping container/suitcase nukes wouldn't help at all against Scuds. Best to cover all bases on a threat like this. Besides maybe the tech will be useful for something else. I've seen a system that can locate snipers automatically, give it a laser and maybe it could knock the bullet down (who knows, it might be possible down the road).

Adept Havelock
07-16-2007, 12:34 PM
I've seen a system that can locate snipers automatically, give it a laser and maybe it could knock the bullet down (who knows, it might be possible down the road).


That's impressive. Hadn't heard about that.

Combined with Laser or Charged Particle weaponry.... :eek:

patteeu
07-16-2007, 12:35 PM
I see nothing in the text of the treaty that shows a mechanism for ending it in this manner, as you allege. Perhaps you have seen a part of the treaty that I have not. If so, a link would be appreciated.

Here it is (http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/abmt/text/abm2.htm):

Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to the other Party six months prior to withdrawal from the Treaty. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the notifying Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

My point is primarily (as I think you are well aware) that if we just decide to ignore a treaty, I think it severely undercuts our ability to legitimately criticize Russia for doing the same thing. :shrug:

And of course, my point whether you understand it or not is that abrogating according to the terms of a treaty and simply ignoring it are two different things. Doing the former doesn't really undercut your ability to criticize the latter. Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if there were some treaties out there were we've actually failed to live up to our agreement, but none come immediately to my mind.

As for my high horse LMAO. How about this: You've been on a high horse about the Iraq clusterf**k for quite some time, and it's quite clear you really don't understand either. I'll stop if you will. Taking the shot is OK with me though. After the last week or so, I can certainly understand the massive sand accumulations you are dealing with. ;)

When someone proves that I'm wrong about our noble war in Iraq, like I've done on this issue with you, I'll get off my high horse. Until then, hi ho Silver, and away!

patteeu
07-16-2007, 12:38 PM
Thank you kindly, Pikesome. Much appreciated.

I guess I'm just wondering...considering this from the CFE treaty:

Article XIX. Point 2: Each State Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. A State Party intending to withdraw shall give notice of its decision to do so to the Depositary and to all other States Parties. Such notice shall be given at least 150 days prior to the intended withdrawal from this Treaty. It shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the State Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

Why is the US so "disappointed"? Looks to me like it's no different from our decision in the ABM treaty.

Then there's the defense analyst who thinks Russia is acting illegally? Looks like this gives everyone an out. :shrug:

If the Russians have complied with this process then it's no different. I don't know whether they have or not. The only objective criteria is the 150 day notice afaics.

pikesome
07-16-2007, 12:41 PM
That's impressive. Hadn't heard about that.

Combined with Laser or Charged Particle weaponry.... :eek:

It's way impracticle ATM, requires preset stations for triangulation and they are easy, weak targets. But there are smart guys working on it, in an era when we can pick which window we want a missile to fly through from an office in Washington, such systems aren't Sci-Fi.

Radar Chief
07-16-2007, 01:04 PM
That's impressive. Hadn't heard about that.

Combined with Laser or Charged Particle weaponry.... :eek:

Saw that on “Future Weapons”, its on Discover tonight BTW.
It basically uses an array of microphones pointed off in different directions and some software to look for the frequency range of a rifle shot, then comparing signal strength from neighboring microphones on a single array to determine direction. It can detect and locate the origin of a shot before the Humvee passengers even realize they’ve been shot at.

Adept Havelock
07-16-2007, 01:07 PM
Thank you patteeu, pikesome, and RC.

I'll be sure to record that show. Appreciate the tip-off. :)

pikesome
07-16-2007, 01:11 PM
Saw that on “Future Weapons”, its on Discover tonight BTW.
It basically uses an array of microphones pointed off in different directions and some software to look for the frequency range of a rifle shot, then comparing signal strength from neighboring microphones on a single array to determine direction. It can detect and locate the origin of a shot before the Humvee passengers even realize they’ve been shot at.

See, this is already better than the system I saw a few years ago. It needed soldiers to set up stations in a fixed location making impracticle for moving, urban combat. Which is the place it is most needed. Development was spurred by the Serb snipers IIRC.

Radar Chief
07-16-2007, 01:17 PM
See, this is already better than the system I saw a few years ago. It needed soldiers to set up stations in a fixed location making impracticle for moving, urban combat. Which is the place it is most needed. Development was spurred by the Serb snipers IIRC.


http://www.gizmag.com/pictures/hero/4497_28080592039.jpg

"Boomerang" is it's name.

Vehicle-mounted Acoustic Sniper Detection System
August 28, 2005 If there’s one thing worse than having snipers shooting at you, it’s getting shot at and not knowing. That’s the bizarre situation US Forces have encountered in both Iraq and Afghanistan as they travel the vast distances in convoys, unable to tell if a bullet has just flown past amidst the noise, dust, and rumble of up to 100 war machines around them. DARPA and BBN Technologies decided to tackle this increasingly common problem and came up with the device at right. It’s called the Boomerang Mobile Shooter Detection System and alerts soldiers of incoming sniper fire to give them the opportunity to retreat to safety or return fire before they are hit. The Boomerang units attach to a vehicle and use seven small microphones, arranged like the spine of a sea urchin, to detect both the muzzle blast and the shock wave from a speeding bullet. Once a sniper's bullet is detected, Boomerang's display panel, which is located inside the vehicle, alerts soldiers through audio and visual signals that a bullet has been fired, its direction and elevation. Boomerang is currently being trialled on 50 Humvees in Iraq. is actually a technological trouble-shooter of the highest order in the world’s most technologically adept country – the company has regularly accomplished incredibly difficult technological feats across a wide range of disciplines, and is one of the rare companies on the planet that has touched something almost everyone encounters on a daily basis –the BBN technology we all know best is the current internet email system. Ray Tomlinson, a principal engineer at BBN, won the 2004 IEEE Internet Award for his vital role in the conceptualization, implementation and standardization of network e-mail. While contributing in 1971 to the design of the ARPANET host-host protocol, Mr. Tomlinson developed the first network electronic mail system. This system quickly became the driving force behind the growth of what later became the Internet. Mr. Tomlinson has contributed to the design of several network protocols, including NVT protocol, TCP and IP protocols, packet radio protocols, and multi-media electronic mail protocols. He participated in the design of a secure network communication system, and implemented the first electronic key distribution. Although his accomplishments are numerous, Mr. Tomlinson is perhaps best known as the creator of the @ protocol for addressing electronic mail.
Since its inception in 1948, BBN has been one of the premier acoustics consulting and contract research and development industrial organizations in the United States. BBN’s most notable accomplishments include designing the acoustics for the U.N. General Assembly Hall; designing development and implementing the ARPANET, forerunner of today’s internet; inventing person-to-person network e-mail; providing the acoustical analysis of the Kennedy assassination tapes; and developing the first Internet router and the first packet switch.
The Boomerang System
Okay, enough about BBN - the vehicle-mounted Boomerang sensor system identifies the origination point of hostile gunfire, in open fields and urban environments, whether static or moving, and in all weather conditions. Sensors mounted in an array at the top of a mast attached to the rear of a vehicle detect both supersonic shock waves and sound waves from the muzzle blast to accurately identify the location from which a shot is fired. Users receive simultaneous visual and auditory information on the point of fire from an LED 12-hour clock image display panel and speaker mounted inside the vehicle.
Boomerang II detects supersonic small arms fire travelling toward the vehicle for bullet trajectories that pass within close proximity to the vehicle and at maximum effective weapon ranges. Incoming fire detection and shooter position are determined and reported in less than 2 seconds. The system resets for subsequent shot detection.
False shot detections are less that one per thousand hours of system operation at vehicle speeds under 50 miles per hour. Missed shots are less than one per 500 shots at vehicle speeds under 50 miles per hour. The system is calibrated to detect the 7.62x39 mm round, which is the round fired by the AK-47 and similar small arms. This round belongs to the family of .30-caliber rifle rounds and travels supersonically when fired from a rifle. However, this calibration does not preclude the system from detecting larger and smaller rounds. In fact, the system has been tested and proven to perform successfully with 5.56 NATO and .50 caliber machine gun rounds.


http://www.gizmag.com/go/4497/