TECHNOIR

by John Lasker

  There are those who still have a bleak outlook for any future Helium-3 success. “We just don't have a need for Helium-3. It’s not practical,” said Jim Benson, founder of SpaceDev, which helped build SpaceShipOne's engine and is also a client for the Missile Defense Agency. Benson said mining for Helium-3 on the Moon doesn't pass the “net energy analysis” test. In other words, with current technology it would take more energy to retrieve the fuel than the fuel would provide. Benson doesn't think too highly of fusion, either. He said the now non-operational tokomak Fusion Test Reactor at Princeton, once the face of U.S. fusion research, was a “multi-million-dollar yearly pork barrel dead end. Nothing accomplished there was noteworthy.”

  Some say the most radical speculation related to Helium-3 is that the US, not willing to be second in any future must-have fuel scenario, will someday seize the Moon. The US will take it, whether shedding blood or not, with missile-defense technology. Which means US missile defense and its perceived image will have morphed – via its dual capabilities – into US space weapons (See chapter 3). Helium-3 mining bases will then be established. All protected by a near impenetrable constellation of Battlesats that will guard the Moon and shred anything that gets near it. The theory, as suggested by what the Russians had to say, is widely regarded as being legitimate; and it is obvious some governments, like the Chinese, are taking it very seriously.

  And what if Obama is serious about not going back to the Moon? Do the Chinese conquer the Moon, harness Helium-3 fusion and control the world’s fuel supply? Fifty years from now, does the US invade the Moon so to oust the Chinese?

  “Helium-3 is one of the reasons the United States never signed the 1979 U.N. Moon treaty, which says no one can claim ownership of the Moon or have bases there. It’s like a modern-day gold rush, but Helium-3 could be far more valuable than gold,” says Gagnon.

  Gagnon has stockpiled an eye-opening amount of evidence from the US military and even Congress that cannot be dismissed. In 1987, for instance, Congress commissioned a book that would be “A frame of reference” related to the “Economic exploitation of lunar resources.” Democrat icon and famous astronaut Sen. John Glenn helped write the introduction. Oddly, the finished product had a militaristic edge. It was titled The Military Space Forces: The Next 50 years, and penned by John Collins, who at the time was a senior national defense researcher for Congress.

  This following paragraph from the book, in particular, is often repeated by Gagnon: “Installations worth defending inevitably will accompany economic exploitation of lunar resources and, perhaps eventually, the colonization of space. Military space forces at the bottom of the Earth’s so-called gravity well are poorly positioned to accomplish offensive/defensive/deterrent missions, because great energy is needed to overcome gravity during launch. Forces at the top, on a space counterpart of ‘high ground,’ could initiate action and detect, identify, track, intercept, or otherwise respond more rapidly to attacks”.

  Gagnon also tells audiences the US military is seeking the ultimate high-ground, the Moon, and there is some hard evidence. Within a Congressionally-mandated study and John Glenn wrote the prologue, no less. The ground we stand on is at the bottom of the “Earth-to-Moon gravity well,” says Gagnon, and it takes incredible amounts of energy to get up and out, and reach the plateau of space free of orbits. The bottom, claims US military scientists, is also where the enemy is most exposed when trying to reach the Moon. This particular gravity well is also defined as having the five Langrangian points. Five orbital positions spread-out amongst a small object and two larger objects (a spy satellite, the Earth, and the Moon, for example).

  This is what the John Glenn-endorsed book had to say about L1 and L2: “L1, the lowest energy transfer site...could be fitted with military facilities. Armed forces might lie in wait at that location to hijack rival shipments on return. L2 is a potentially important clandestine military assembly area, since cislunar and Earth-based sentinels cannot see it.”

  Besides space, Collins would get into the nitty-gritty of Moon combat. “Lunar foxholes would provide better cover than terrestrial counterparts, because the absence of air confines blast effects to much smaller areas.” He also discusses the prospects of using tactical nukes in a Moon-war scenario. “Strike forces on the Moon could choose from the full range of offensive maneuvers. Nuclear weapons detonated in atmosphere create shock waves, violent winds, and intense heat that can inflict severe damage and casualties well beyond the hypocenter.” But, in space “winds never blow in a vacuum, shock waves cannot develop and neither fireballs nor superheated surrounding air develop above 65 miles. Consequently, it would take direct hits or near misses to achieve required results with nuclear blast and thermal radiation.”

  One has to wonder what inspired the author to think that combat on the Moon is something so conceivable, so inevitable. Perhaps the author was indulging in too many science fiction movies and books. But there was factual history here. Going all the way back to 1959 – during the classic period of sci-fi flicks.

  In 1959 the US Army published a report entitled: “Project Horizon Report: A U.S. Army Study for the Establishment of a Lunar Outpost.” The study stated that “The lunar outpost is required to develop and protect potential U.S. interests on the moon; to develop techniques in moon-based surveillance of the earth and space....Any military operations on the Moon will be difficult to counter by the enemy because of the difficulty of his reaching the moon, if our forces are already present and have means of countering a landing or of neutralizing any hostile forces that have landed.”

  Shooting bullets on the Moon has always sparked some to wonder if a gun-battle on the Moon would be as lethal as on Earth. The answer is yes, bullets are more lethal; way more lethal, in fact. They have a much farther range than if fired on Earth because there’s no wind resistance. Furthermore the Moon’s gravity also allows bullets to travel an estimated 6 times farther than fired on Earth (Moon’s gravity is one/sixth the Earth’s). But by the time tanks and soldiers are moving across the Sea of Tranquility (where man first walked on the Moon), lasers will more than likely have replaced the old fashioned round, Collins wrote. “Space is a nearly perfect laser environment because light propagates unimpeded in a vacuum. Laser weapons, regardless of type (gas, chemical, excimer, free electron, solid state, X-ray) energy photons on the target. The beam burns concentrate a tightly focused shaft or pulse of radiant through.”

  And if a direct nuclear strike doesn’t do the job, the Congressionally-sponsored document suggests breaking out the chemical and biological weapons. Collins stated, “Self-contained biospheres in space accord a superlative environment for chemical and biological warfare. Clandestine operatives could dispense lethal or incapacitating chemical weapons or biological weapons agents, rapidly and uniformly through enemy facilities.”

  The race for Helium-3 and other potential Moon resources, says Gagnon, can be compared to what happened on Earth more than 500 years ago. Return to Spain late in the 15th century, when it was the most powerful nation on Earth. And the queen of Spain, Queen Isabella, was bank-rolling Christopher Columbus’ forays to the “New World.” Spain would soon stake claim to the New World, by building an armada that would maintain control for 100 years the New World’s wealth of resources and the sea routes to get there. NASA and the Pentagon are engaging in the same long-range planning today, says Gagnon. Hundreds of years from now when the Moon and Mars are colonized, NASA will be thought of as the Christopher Columbus of our day, he says.

  But this is not the 15th century, and there are many advanced nations these days, that will not allow the Earth’s current super-power to monopolize Earth’s celestial neighbor. Perhaps foreseeing such a future where one nation or even a corporation decided to take over the Moon, the UN in 1967 helped bring about The Outer Space Treaty. Signed and ratified by nearly 100 countries, including all those currently racing for the Moon, the treaty is considered international space law. It bars nuclear weapons or weapons of
mass destruction in space, on the Moon, any planet, a planet’s moon or asteroid. Specifically for the Moon, the treaty prohibits military tests, war games and military bases. Also noteworthy is how the treaty forbids any nation from claiming resources or territory from the Moon. The Moon is the common heritage of mankind, contends the treaty.

  But the Earth will always have its capitalists who can never get enough. Without question there will come a future when a bunch of humans will be determined to make a profit out of Moon cheese. But why hold your breath, when you have Apollo astronaut and Helium-3 obsessed Jack Schmitt? In 1998 for the industry newspaper Space News, he called the 1967 Outer Space Treaty “not a wise idea.” He wrote, “The strong prohibition on ownership of the Moon’s ‘natural resources’ also causes worry. The mandate of (the treaty) would complicate private commercial effort. The Moon Treaty is not needed to further the development and use of lunar resources for the benefit of humankind, including the extraction of lunar Helium-3 for terrestrial fusion power.”

  The world is straining to keep pace with energy demands, expected to increase eightfold by 2050 as the world population swells toward 12 billion. Could Helium-3 be the resource our grand children and great-grandchildren spill their blood for? And will some of this blood be congealed on the cold and dusty Moon regolith? Gagnon says it is no coincidence that in 2009, Russia and China tried, once again, to bring a stronger and up-to-date space weapons treaty to the world’s table for everyone to sign. Telling was how the greatest space-weapons power on Earth – the United States – refused to sign-off.

  “All of this military planning to create a base on the Moon is not new,” said Gagnon. “It becomes clear to the reader that the issues of space colonization, mining, military control and nuclear power in space are all linked in the minds of the corporate military industrial complex. It is now time for the peace and environmental movements to develop the capability to see the writing on the wall and to begin dealing with it.”

  CHAPTER 5

  How Nelson Mandela turned the tide in Iraq

  The Buffalo and the Cougar

  Nelson Mandela spent 30 years in prison, and not long after his release he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993. Some 15 years later, he would play a small part in the US’s miracle turnaround in Iraq. A small role that had a big impact. Better yet, a role that could deflect one.

  At over 90 years of age, Mandela is arguably the world’s greatest statesman. An international symbol for the victory of global civil rights. A man who forgave those who made him chip rocks for three brutal decades. He put all that in his past when he became South Africa’s leader, trying mightily to bring the white and black South Africans together as a nation, and far more importantly, as a people. For Mandela, his greatest victory will always be over Apartheid. The legal division of South African blacks from whites, who were mostly Afrikaners and British. It was also the division of the ruthless white, rich ruling class, from the poor, black working class. A division that appeared impossible to bridge. But Mandela defeated South African Apartheid with a simple strategy – the open hand of reconciliation along with the power of negotiation.

  What is so unique about his indirect role in Iraq, is that he would unknowingly and probably unwillingly do an about face on his core beliefs. He would help a powerful and overreaching government, the US, overtake a weak and segregated population in Iraq. This is an extreme anti-American statement that is not of my own creation. Some would argue it is a slap-in-the-face to Mandela, as well. Nevertheless, the facts show it can be argued Mandela helped turned the tide in Iraq for the US. Facts that are left to your own interpretation.

  What is also unique is how the technology highlighted in this chapter went from a bone-chilling symbol of oppression to a savior of many lives, and then back to a bone-chilling symbol of oppression (as some leftist radicals would argue). Ironically, this technology could very well again become the savior of many lives. What is also unusual about this technology is that it is not some Doomsday weapon or laser that can down satellites 20,000 miles up. The technology is, simply, a truck.

  The truck is the MRAP, or the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle. Prehistoric on the outside, Space Age on the inside. Those are the words from one of America’s original manufacturer of the MRAP – Force Protection of Charleston, South Carolina. Force Protection calls their MRAPs the Buffalo and the Cougar. But like steppe flies on dung, other defense contractors swarmed over Pentagon contracts to build other versions of the MRAP after Congress said their need in Iraq reached emergency levels. Force Protection was practically trampled by these other contractors, and even fined by the US government because they couldn’t build their Cougar fast enough due to a lack of manpower. Even so, it was Force Protection that led the way to the MRAP's US military revolution, one that probably occurred from 2004 to 2007. That’s when production of MRAPs went from a single truck being manufactured every five weeks, to 1,400 being delivered to US troops from May of 2007 to January 2008 – at $500,000 a piece. Overall, Pentagon funding for the MRAP went from $170 million for FY2006, to $16 billion FY2008. The cost of transporting these beasts is also steep. Lifting one halfway across the globe in a C-17 aircraft costs more than the vehicle itself at roughly $750,000, according to the U.S. Transportation Command.

  Indeed, at 25 tons, sitting 4 feet off the ground on 50-inch tires, the desert-tan MRAPs are intimidating monsters. They are tall and narrow, and thick with layers of armor; newer MRAPs are being outfitted with a remote-controlled turret, armed with a .50 caliber machine gun or other heavy gun. The MRAPs’ battlefield fame comes from its V-shaped monohull that directs the force of the blast from below the vehicle and sideways, thus away from the passenger compartment or capsule. What’s more, high velocity rounds such as the .50-caliber bullet ricochet off extra-thick armor and glass. And while not classified, companies such as Force Protection aren't keen on giving away the trade secrets of a vehicle whose occupants can survive a 500-pound bomb. RPGs, however, must have proved to be a bit tougher. MRAPs can now be outfitted with a cage-like “armor jacket” that protects the vehicles’ high sides from RPGs.

  Before the advent of Shia insurgents sneaking out in the dead of night to bury twenty artillery shells wired together, the MRAP was a lonely beast. Mostly sniffing for land mines in war-torn countries and using a 30-foot long robotic arm to dig them up like truffles. Sometimes the beast’s masters would attach a massive front-loaded rake with oversized teeth, so to chew up the scourge of the Third World as if they were rocks. Then a critical thing happened in US history that would turn these small bands of MRAPs into huge herds: The Iraqi insurgency began in the summer of 2003.

  Within a few months of the insurgency, the Improvised Explosive Device or IEDs – the hidden, homemade-bomb made Jihadi-style (cell phone call as trigger) – began blowing up American troops and their soft-underbellied Humvees which would flip like pancakes because they were designed like one; flat and low to the ground. In a perverse way, the IED became this war’s Nazi death camps. They sickened people across the globe. A 1,000-pound bomb takes out an entire market – 100 dead. A car-bomb near a mosque blows away 60 civilians. A bomb buried deep under a highway kills 14 Marine reservists from Lima Company, 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines, based out of Ohio, as they drove in a thin-skinned amphibious transport vehicle. On and on it went.

  In 2005, 50 percent of all attacks against coalition forces were from IEDs, according to the Internet magazine Salon, which was citing a US unit created to eliminate IEDs. The following year that percentage would rise to 75 percent. And in October of 2006, nearly 80 IEDs were going off underneath or near US troops every single day. Thus came a time when images began appearing on the nightly news of US troops digging through garbage heaps for metal so to “up-armor” their Humvees. This was also the time when soon-to-be-disposed Secretary of State, Donald Rumsfeld told a concerned soldier that you, “go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want.” His callous statement caused an uproar back in th
e states. Families of soldiers who died in unarmored Humvees were furious. The entire country was desperate to defeat a weapon that was made by amateurs, cost practically nothing to build, and allowed the amateurs jihadists to cower and hide as they sent Americans home in coffins.

  This was also the time when Force Protection sent one of their MRAPs rumbling through the streets of Washington, right up to the steps of the Capitol building. Before this, however, there was just a small number of Buffalo and Cougar MRAPs in Iraq. As the insurgency intensified, Marines came forward with some revealing stats – in 2004, the Jihadis tried to destroy the Buffalo and Cougar over 300 times with IEDs – and not a single Marine had died. This caught the attention of now-Vice President Joe Biden, who began harassing the White House for failing to equip troops with what they truly needed.

  “The response from the field has been overwhelmingly positive,” said Jeff Child, a spokesman for Force Protection. We spoke in 2005. He said Force Protection's MRAPs uncovered roughly 200 improvised explosives in and around central Iraq in the winter of 2004 when there were only a few Buffalos and Cougars in-country. Lt. Cameron Chen, part of a U.S. military ordinance removal team, said, “Two of my men in Ramadi survived an IED (improvised explosive device) attack while in the Cougar. So I am a believer. All agree that it's the safest vehicle.”

  Seeing an immediate need, the new Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, made the mass production of MRAPs part of an “emergency war budget” in 2007. He declared the MRAP the Pentagon’s highest priority. Nearly $1.2 billion in 2007 would be pumped into building over 2,500 MRAPs. From 2007 to mid-2008, 7,000 MRAPs were rushed to Iraq. Since then, 15,000 have been proposed with a budget of $25 billion. And if the money is ever approved by Congress, the MRAP all of sudden would become the Pentagon’s third largest program behind missile defense and the Joint Strike Fighter. It appears those numbers may be reigned in because the MRAP is hard to handle on rugged Afghan roads. Nonetheless, as of March 2009, 10,000 MRAPs were in Iraq, and 1,800 in Afghanistan.