|
|
ONLINE FEATURES
Book Reviews
BW Video
Columnists
Interactive Gallery
Newsletters
Past Covers
Philanthropy
Podcasts
Special Reports
BLOGS
Auto Beat
Bangalore Tigers
Blogspotting
Brand New Day
Byte of the Apple
Economics Unbound
Eye on Asia
Fine On Media
Green Biz
Hot Property
Investing Insights
Management IQ
NEXT: Innovation
NussbaumOnDesign
Tech Beat
Working Parents
TECHNOLOGY
J.D. Power Ratings
Product Reviews
Tech Stats
Wildstrom: Tech Maven
AUTOS
Home Page
Auto Reviews
Classic Cars
Car Care & Safety
Hybrids
INNOVATION
& DESIGN Home Page Architecture Brand Equity Auto Design Game Room SMALLBIZ Smart Answers Success Stories Today's Tip INVESTING Investing: Europe Annual Reports BW 50 S&P Picks & Pans Stock Screeners Free S&P Stock Report SCOREBOARDS Hot Growth 100 Mutual Funds Info Tech 100 S&P 500 B-SCHOOLS Undergrad Programs MBA Blogs MBA Profiles MBA Rankings Who's Hiring Grads | |
MARCH 25, 2003 SECURITY NET By Alex Salkever Keeping the Edge on Technology's Sword Sophisticated weaponry gives the U.S. an awesome advantage. But what happens when enemies change tactics to counter it -- or simply buy it?
In short, technology is never fail-safe, as the U.S. Patriot missile battery that took out an advanced British Tornado fighter-bomber demonstrated in a tragic "friendly fire" episode. And it can fall into the wrong hands: The U.S. government has lodged protests with Moscow for failing to halt what the Bush Administration calls "illegal" sales of military equipment to Iraq, including antitank missiles and thousands of powerful night-vision scopes. Perhaps Uncle Sam won't rule the night after all -- at least not to the degree that the U.S. public had been led to believe. TACTICAL TRICKS. I still believe the fight will be quick, over in perhaps a couple more weeks, in large part because of the allies' technological edge. U.S. tanks, planes, and precision missiles will decimate Saddam's remaining loyal troops as sure as the sun rises over the desert. But the rules of warfare continue to play by the simple Newtonian law of action and reaction. Ten years after the dawn of technocentric war, when U.S.-led forces flung Iraqi troops out of Kuwait in a bloody rout, now comes the reaction -- the counterpoint -- from Iraqis, who know better than most what to fear. Note the strategic shift by Saddam's commanders: Knowing that they're no match for U.S. tanks and firepower in the open desert, they've shifted the war to Iraq's cities, where technology's edge is blunted. The U.S. military knew this and trained for such street-by-street skirmishing in the months before the invasion. Regardless, in narrow alleys and in the shadow of buildings, high-tech tools still place a distant second to making the right decisions in a split second. And this time, one side has a home-field advantage. In Umm Qasr and Al Nasariya, Saddam's men waited until U.S. troops entered those cities before fighting back. This could well be a template for future conflict against big modern armies. The counterreaction? The Pentagon may want to take a harder look at better technology, such as ultrawideband detection devices that can see through walls. Such gear could prove extremely useful in giving U.S. forces an urban-warfare advantage. NEW PARADIGMS. If Iraq inflicts heavy casualties in this war on U.S. troops using urban-warfare tactics, future enemies will take notice. That's why the Defense Dept. is pouring money into nonlethal weapons systems. For example, military researchers are looking at the development of ultraslimy substances that make it impossible to walk without slipping on city streets. Then there are microwave "bombs" that can wipe out electronic equipment by frying their innards with a short, intense blast of energy. Another kind of of microwave device under development are "directed-energy" weapons. Mounted on the backs of vehicles, these weapons use low-energy microwave pulses to stun civilians, guerrillas, and enemy soldiers, causing extreme burning pain but inflicting no lasting harm. Many of the Geneva Convention's signatory nations claim that these technologies would be illegal under international rules of engagement if employed against civilians. But the world may be reaching a point where civilians are better off being temporarily incapacitated if their pain and discomfort makes it easier to locate combatants hiding in their ranks. Allied forces mistakenly killing their own still looms as a large problem on the tech battlefield. In the 1991 Gulf War, more American and coalition troops died from friendly fire than from Iraqi bullets or shells. Unfortunately, the same ratio appears to be emerging again in Gulf War II. NO MONOPOLY ON TECH. It's one thing when a plane drops an errant bomb on infantrymen, who can be hard to track and identify. It's an entirely different and far more troubling scenario when a Patriot missile battery shoots down a British fighter-bomber -- one that that should have been carrying a friend-or-foe electronic signature device intended to prevent such mishaps. If the lethal missile carried a device to recognize such a signal and it didn't work, then the Patriot needs more work. Then there are those Russian night-vision goggles. If the Iraqis have indeed laid their hands on them, the episode is a reminder that while U.S. equipment may be better than anyone else's, America hardly has a monopoly on high-tech weaponry. Since night-vision scopes are now widely available in the civilian sector, where junters, naturalists, and the like use them, it's hard to classify them as military technology. Just as the microchip has transformed the global economy over the past two decades, advanced technology has become as much a part of civilian life as it is a tool of military strategy. Take satellite photographs. Once considered top-secret, these images have made their way into the economic mainstream, thanks to vastly improved scopes and sensors. The technology has become a valuable asset for a wide range of use, from military surveillance and reconnaissance to detailed topographic images and land-use data captured from orbit and available to any outfit or individual prepared to pay for it. FLEETING EDGE. While the engineering challenges of adapting civilian advances to military use remain considerable, it's far easier than, say, developing a fighter plane from scratch. In that sense, the vaunted technological superiority provides a fleeting advantage much akin to a faster chip. Being always able to develop the faster chip is essential to keeping one step ahead of the competition, whether it's commercial rivals or enemies on future battlefields. But it also means that last year's cutting-edge technology sooner or later spreads to everyone else. As U.S. troops prepare to take Baghdad, the Pentagon's technowarriors have plenty to learn from what's transpiring in the desert and cities of Iraq.  Salkever is Technology editor for BusinessWeek Online and covers computer security issues weekly in his Security Net column Edited by Douglas Harbrecht Get BusinessWeek directly on your desktop with our RSS feeds.  Add BusinessWeek news to your Web site with our headline feed. Click to buy an e-print or reprint of a BusinessWeek or BusinessWeek Online story or video. To subscribe online to BusinessWeek magazine, please click here. Learn more, go to the BusinessWeekOnline home page  | | MARCH |
 Copyright 2003, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.Terms of Use | Privacy Policy |
Printer-Friendly Version
