Can Insurgent Attacks Be Modelled By A Simple Equation?

University of Miami physicist Neil Johnson and his co-authors seem to think so. They have published an analysis of insurgent attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, and discovered a pattern to such activities.

Johnson and his research team gathered publicly available data on military fatalities in Afghanistan and Iraq. On a graph, the numbers created a distinct, upward curve.

He says it wasn't just a coincidence; those numbers follow a specific mathematical pattern. In this case, the pattern translates into an equation you can punch into a handheld calculator, says Johnson.

I'm typically skeptical of this type of modeling of human behavior. In this instant, the unpredictability of even the action of one person is enough to screw up the predictions, and that in turn could have a chain of consequences.

Besides, once something like this is published, who is to say that these insurgents would not become aware of their pattern, and try to plan their attacks to NOT follow such pattern?

Zz.

Jlab's Laser Breaks Power Record

We have news reports that the newly installed FEL system at Jefferson lab has broken its own record for laser power.

However, the news report may have a slight typo in describing the power that was reached:

Researchers at the Department of Energy's nuclear physics laboratory on Friday injected a record-breaking 500 kilovolts of power into the laser's accelerator. The previous limit set by Jefferson Lab researchers had been 320 kilowatts.

They may have meant 500 kilowatts of power. Kilovolts is potential difference, and it is also not kosher to compare kilovolts with kilowatts.

In any case, this is quite a significant increase! One would hope that the US Navy knows where to point one of these things if they ever build it on their ships.

BTW, in case people don't realize it, a free-electron laser (FEL) is an ACCELERATOR facility (i.e. it is not an optical/solid state light source). I'm simply highlighting another application/use of accelerator physics.

Zz.

Work on the Manhattan Project, Subsequent Events, and Little Known Facts Related to its Use

I was planning on doing quite a bit of work this morning when I showed up extra early at the lab, but instead, I spent several delightful minutes reading this amazing personal account of the Manhattan Project and the dropping of the bombs that ended World War II. This personal account was written by Lawrence Bartell, one of the last remaining participants of the venerable project.

Abstract: A personal account of work on the Manhattan Project in Chicago by one of the few remaining survivors of the war-time project is given, illustrating, among other things, how absurd things can happen at a time of great stress and concern.. As is well known, Los Alamos was the site specializing in the physics of the bomb while Chicago emphasized metallurgical and chemical research. Nevertheless, physics played a significant role in Chicago, as well. That is where Fermi constructed the worlds first uranium pile under the stands of Stagg field, a site at which this author got seriously irradiated. Some curious events occurring after the bomb was dropped are also related. In addition, at this time of public protest by sincere people who question the ethics of America for dropping the bomb on innocent civilians, certain facts, obviously unknown to the protesters, are presented which place the bombing in a rather different light.

It's amazing that all of the radiation and chemical exposure that he endured haven't caused him more significant health problems.

It's an amazing historical account and adds another perspective to the Manhattan Project, especially from the Chicago effort.

Zz.

FY 2010 US Defense Science and Technology Appropriation Bill

The Obama administration has requested, in general, less money in FY2010 for the Defense Dept. for science and technology research. This is in contrast with a significant increase in the civilian science and technology funding request for the same fiscal year.

A summary of the various numbers passed by the different legislative branches can be found here.

Zz.

DoD Announces $400 Million Investment To Basic Research

Why funding for civilian basic research in the US is suffering, especially with a continuing resolution with a disastrous fiscal year budget, funding for basic research from the military is alive and well.

The Department of Defense today announced plans to invest an additional $400 million over the next five years to support basic research at academic institutions.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates secured the additional funding in the fiscal 2009 President's budget request to Congress to expand research into new and emerging scientific areas and to foster fundamental discoveries related to the DoD's most challenging technical problems. The DoD published a ‘Strategic Plan For Basic Research’ last summer, which built the case for this effort. Acknowledging this need, Congress authorized and appropriated funds to support these significant increases in basic research investment.

However, don't tell those misguided "activists" at the University of New Mexico. They'll think that no matter what research area you got money in, that you're doing "weapons research".

Activists Decry Weapons Research at UNM

This is one of my "rant" blog post, so if you're not in the mood to hear something like this, I suggest you skip this one.

This article from an "independent" student newspaper for the University of New Mexico, reports on a rather quirky tour for the UNM campus. The tour highlights all the various facilities and parts of the university that received money and does research sponsored by the US military.

The free tours are part of Disorientation Week, organized by the Demilitarization Collective, which aims to raise awareness about weapons research at UNM.

The tours have seven stops from the Bookstore to Scholes Hall and run all week until 4 p.m. with a final tour Saturday at noon.

The tour stops at on-campus ROTC organizations and nuclear, computer and electrical engineering departments at UNM.

That's fine and dandy. I have nothing against people exercising their rights to highlights these things, and even to voice their objection against anything involving military fundings. However, what gets me is the FALSE premise on which this whole thing is built upon.

"Public universities, in particular, have been incorporated into the military-industrial-academic complex," said Andrew Marcum, a Ph.D. student majoring in American Studies.

Marcum said the "military-industrial-academic complex" is an agreement between universities and the military in which funding is exchanged for research that can be used to make weapons.

Whoa! Back up a bit here, Mary! "Military-industrial-academic complex" automatically means "make weapons"?!!!!! What sick, twisted logic school did we graduated from?

The US military is interested in a HUGE amount of things and areas, the majority of them probably have nothing to do with "making weapons". Light-sensitive eyepiece, chemical sensors, remote sensing technologies, even materials science to make better electronics and tougher, lighter material! Many of these things are already being done for civilian research! One can easily argue that a research on the fundamental physics of superconductivity can ALSO be used by the military. Does that mean that this is weapons research? Baloney!

A project called "Consortium for Laser Cooling in Solids," led by professor Mansoor Sheik-Bahae, received $3.4 million in government funding.

Sheik-Bahae said the research deals with cryogenically freezing sensors with laser technology to increase their sensitivity and that it may not be related to weapons research.

Sheik-Bahae said the work done at UNM and at other universities is basic research and isn't geared toward weapons development.

"There's always this misconception that anything that the Department of Defense funds is weapons-related," he said. "No one that I know is doing weapons-related research, and we wouldn't like to do it."

And there's plenty of evidence to show that Prof. Sheik-Bahae is telling it like it is. If this is really a part of a "weapons research", I can tell you that it will be classified, and the LAST thing the military would allow is for research work on this to be published. A quick glance at the citation index show that Prof. Sheik-Bahae has published many papers on this "laser-cooling" topic recently (example:
B. Imangholi et al. Appl. Phys. Lett. 86, 081104 (2005)). The military would NEVER allow for such free and wide decimation of this info if it has any connection to weapons research.

Besides, why would they want to involve a state/public institution in any weapons research when they have Los Alamos lab a few miles away and Sandia lab just next door, both of which have a much more well-established military research complex and more secure facilities? It makes no sense!

I even wonder if the people organizing this tour even understood what all the research is about? I mean, do these people actually understood what "laser cooling in solids" actually is? Are they able to decipher and analyze the type of research work being done before they simply label them as weapons research? Having someone with major in "American Studies" to tell people that these are are used to "make weapons" makes as much sense as John McCain having an economist as the point man for all of his scientific/technological policy.

But in the end, it feels like this whole tour, and the whole protest, is simply based on ignorance and wild speculation.

"Last week, $150,000 went missing, and then it turned up again," Marcum said. "The administration got caught messing around with our money. We need as much transparency as possible."

Marcum said the lack of financial transparency could be a sign UNM is conducting weapons research and profiting from wartime activity.

I mean, really! I bet if the financial officer gets a hiccup, it is also a sign that UNM is conducting weapons research. What delusional reality do these people live in? This whole thing reeks the smell of rumor-mongering with very little solid evidence, and falls on the same level as "evidence" collected by tabloid journalism.

Now, one can also argue against me by saying "But ZapperZ, you are also basing your opinion on very flimsy sources. After all, all you have is the news report. How are you to know that you got the full information on what their position is, and what the evidence they have?"

That is very true. I based my view entirely on this news source, which isn't the best place to get accurate information. So I would be more than happy if someone from that organization, even that "American Studies" fella, contact me or leave a comment. I would love to hear what evidence they have that UNM is conducting in weapons research beyond just innuendo and wild speculation. I'd love to hear an expert in these various research areas to tell me that these research work can be used to "make weapons".

Zz.