DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech examines the intersection of technology and defense from every angle and provides analysis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • ‘Canes
  • Af-Cam
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the “Buzz”
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Crazy Ivan
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT’s Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • F-35 Watch
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Bubble with Joe Buff
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar’s Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples’ Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward’z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Bizarro » How to Rate a (Possibly) Stupid Weapon Idea

How to Rate a (Possibly) Stupid Weapon Idea

If you follow the fascinating history of Metal Storm, the Australian company that built a weapon that can shoot a million rounds a minute, you might want to check out this story in Australias Sydney Morning Herald on their latest trials and tribulations. (If youre not familiar with their history, you can check out my very long article with sidebars in the September/October 2005 issue of Defense Technology International.)
metal storm.jpgIm going to write a longer post on the company next week, but this news got me thinking on whether theres a way to predict bad and/or stupid weapons. Now, Im not saying Metal Storm is a bad or stupid weapon, Im just saying that it would be great if there were some way to guess ahead of time which ideas are really bad, and which are just a little silly.
In giving some thought to this issue, Ive created the rating system below this is still a work in progress (and some credit clearly goes to the crackpot index) but I think its a good starting point.
For suggestions or additions, please leave comments below (or if you prefer, e-mail me at sharonweinberger[at]gmail.com). Im going to need to run a few possibly stupid weapons through this rating system to get an idea of how the scoring works.
And before anyone gets up in arms (yes, a bad cliche), PLEASE NOTE THIS IS A SLIDING SCALE. For example, Metal Storm has indeed built working prototypes, and Ive met some really bright military engineers who love to make references to Star Trek. Just look at this system as a reality check.
Enjoy!
How to rate a possibly stupid weapons idea:
1) Promises a revolution in warfare.
Add 50 points. Add 25 points for claims of a new arms race. Add 5 points for each time any derivative of the word transformation is used in promotional materials describing the weapon.
2) Is supposedly based on a new innovation, yet on closer examination, there are myriad examples of attempts using similar ideas in the past.
Add 10 points for each case of a similar idea in the past. Add another 15 points, for each case inventor/company was unaware of this earlier attempt, and thus failed to learn from past mistakes.
3) Lacks a realistic operational scenario of where or how such a weapon could be used.
Add 25 points. Add 15 points if inventor/company describes an operational scenario, but it has no relation to current warfare (i.e. aircraft equipped with laser beams shooting at each other).
4) The usability of the weapon assumes as yet unproven leaps in technology to reduce size, power generation or other critical elements.
Add 15 points for each needed technological advance.
5) The idea comes from someone who is unfamiliar with how the military fights and how weapons are used.
Add 15 points (this is slightly subjective, so add only five points if served in military, but never involved in any military operations). Add 20 points if military experience is derived from watching war movies or the evening news.
6) The company/inventor relies on obtaining funding (private or public) from people who themselves have no idea how the military uses weapons (i.e. private investors, congressional earmarks).
Add 20 points if developmental funding relies on congressional earmarks (as opposed to funds requested in the Pentagons budget). Add 25 points if developmental funding relies on publicly traded stock. Add 30 points for developmental funding from intelligence agencies.
7) Incorporates references to and/or inspiration from Star Trek, Star Wars, Buck Rogers, or video games.
Add 10 points for Star Trek, 5 points for Star Wars, 3 points for Buck Rogers, and 2 points for video games (regardless whether XBox or Playstation II).
8) Inventor/company argues that people also once doubted the feasibility of a nuclear weapon, as if that automatically means that this weapon will work and/or is deserving of nearly unlimited funding.
Add 25 points. Also add 20 points if similar references are made to the Wright Brothers and airplanes.
9) Claims foreign countries are working hard on this technology, and could overtake the United States if we dont invest in it (without proof of such work).
Add 10 points for claiming Russia is working on the same type of weapons, 20 points for China, 30 points for North Korea, and 5 points for the French. Score extra 100 points if claim is that extraterrestrial life forms are working on it (in fact, stop now if thats the case trust me, thats a stupid weapon).
10) Claims foreign governments have contacted inventor/company about buying the weapon and/or idea (but with no actual sales).
Add 10 points.
11) Relies on PowerPoint in lieu of engineering details to demonstrate workability.
Add 5 points for each cartoon depiction of technology not yet in existence.
12) References to previous military funding as proof the idea is valid, because we all know the military only funds things that work.
Add 5 points.
13) When presented with possible scientific laws that the weapon as proposed might violate, inventor/company simply insists the weapon works, and its up to the scientists to explain how.
Add 35 points.
14) Cost of the weapon (please include nonrecurring costs if the weapon doesnt yet exist), exceeds that of similar one currently in inventory by a factor of 10.
Add 20 points for each factor of 10. Add another 5 points if you assert that costs will come down with mass production without being able to cite evidence for demand and/or how much those costs would be reduced.
15) Any proof the weapon works is openly paraded to the media, but questions about problems with the weapon are rebuffed by claims that the information is classified or proprietary.
Add 25 points.
– Sharon Weinberger (and cross-posted at my new Imaginary Weapons site)

Share |

September 1st, 2006 | Bizarro | 326526 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2006/09/01/how-to-rate-a-possibly-stupid-weapon-idea/How+to+Rate+a+%28Possibly%29+Stupid+Weapon+Idea2006-09-01+18%3A27%3A38haninah_levine You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Philip K. Dick: Defense Tech Guru? | Score One for Missile Defense » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Rip says:
    September 1, 2006 at 2:05 pm

    Wonderful!
    You, of course, will make a scorecard available on-line? Average the scores submitted/received for a particular weapon?
    What’s the flunk threshold or is that TBD?
    How far is the net to be cast?
    Rip

    Reply
  2. David Hambling says:
    September 1, 2006 at 2:29 pm

    I make that about a million points so far for all those mentions of the the ‘revolutionary’ ‘transformational’ F-22, but that’s without getting too far down the list.
    Does anything rival it?

    Reply
  3. sharon Weinberger says:
    September 1, 2006 at 2:37 pm

    Any suggested weapons to be rated (good or bad) are welcome. We’ll be collecting comments on this site (and mine) over the next week on the rating system. I’ll also be running some weapons through the rating system to get a baseline score and work out flukes. An updated posting will come out next week.

    Reply
  4. sglover says:
    September 1, 2006 at 3:07 pm

    Yeah, I’ll wager the F-22 and the JSF both rack up a respectable tallies under this system. But I’m guessing the 747-mounted laser, complete with a boxcar or so of caustic fuel, might have the top score.

    Reply
  5. Skul says:
    September 1, 2006 at 6:27 pm

    If I touch off a twelve gauge shotgun firing 400 pellets, does that count as 200,000 shots a minute??

    Reply
  6. Herschel Smith says:
    September 2, 2006 at 12:46 am

    Awful. I am an engineer. An engineer’s dream, a soldier’s nightmare. It will fill with dust, clog, rust, shake apart, rattle the operator to the bone, be susceptible to chemical sress corrossion cracking, has too many moving parts, break continually, be impossible to maintain, take all of the maintenance technician’s time doing preventive and corrective maintenance, cause hard feelings between soldiers who try to maintain it and those who try to shoot it, and almost never be used to effect enemy deaths because it is a large and unwieldy weapon with too many moving parts that sustains too much service over too short a period of time.
    The soldiers who fire and maintain it will seek another billet immediately because they will hate their life.

    Reply
  7. 10th says:
    September 2, 2006 at 8:04 am

    4) The usability of the weapon assumes as yet unproven leaps in technology to reduce size, power generation or other critical elements.
    I think this one should add a lot more points to the equation.…if it depends on the promises of technological advances that don’t even exist yet.…for example: FCS.…too heavy to airlift in a C-130 (one of the primary project goals), does not offer a substantial increase in armor protection (verses current armored platforms). All because it depended on someone developing a stronger, lighter weight armor design, which never happened.

    Reply
  8. pedestrian says:
    September 2, 2006 at 8:44 am

    >Score extra 100 points if claim is that extraterrestrial life forms are working on it (in
    >fact, stop now if that

    Reply
  9. Byron Skinner says:
    September 2, 2006 at 1:34 pm

    Good Morning Folks,
    This appears to be a weapon that would have had strong a appeal to the Germans of WWII. I only bring this up because of the Bush Administration’s long admiration of Nazi Germany and Facistism.
    Anyone who has exmanined the weapons employed by Germany in WWII finds many have a simularity in design, they were needlessly complex for what they were ment to do, from the Lugar pistol, I know this was an American invention but the Germans “perfected it?”, to the Tanks and Aircraft deployed in mind nimbing varities.
    As indicated in another post here the test of a weapon is the ability of some 19 year old with an IQ of 90 to use and maintain it in the field as well as the ability of some 30 year old bored union employee on an assembly line to manufacture. Few weapons outside of the old Soviet Union manage to pass these two tests.
    The current example of the is the Patroit Air Defense Missile System that deploys only with “factory reps” who do every thing but push the button when the system is used on manual. In Iraq the Partoit proved more deadly to allied pilots then Iraqis.
    ALLONS,
    Byron Skinner

    Reply
  10. Noah (the other one) says:
    September 2, 2006 at 2:50 pm

    16) Ignores obvious and simple countermeasures that would render the system useless. Add 100 points.

    Reply
  11. Herschel Smith says:
    September 2, 2006 at 5:44 pm

    Byron Skinner, you are an idiot. The word is not Facistism. And the word is not Partoit. And WWII Germany is not germane to the post. You just made that up. Finally, you have no idea what the IQ of the typical U.S. troop is. You just made that up too. Perhaps you were thinking about your own IQ.

    Reply
  12. Noah (the other one) says:
    September 2, 2006 at 8:49 pm

    Herschel:
    First, US military recruitment problems have forced them to lower their standards (see http://​www​.slate​.com/​i​d​/​2​1​2​7​4​87/). This has been going on for some time and is clearly what Byron was referring to. Reduced intelligence is ill-suited to highly complex systems that tend to be difficult to operate and maintain.
    Second, the ‘mind numbing’ number of active and proposed high-tech weapons systems is indeed reminiscent of WWII German programs. The dispersion of resources necessary to fund / research / prototype / test / manufacture and field a wide variety of weapons effectively hampered the development and use of systems that had the potential to have a substantial impact on the war (such as the ME-262). Sadly, such lessons from the past continue to be ignored in favor of profit. As a side note, much US military hardware, including aircraft and particularly rocket and missile technology, was based on captured German hardware and scientists (like Wernher Von Braun).
    Third, as to the

    Reply
  13. reefdiver says:
    September 2, 2006 at 9:01 pm

    Ok you’ve convinced me — its obvious the military should have stuck with muzzle loading muskets…

    Reply
  14. rabidfox says:
    September 2, 2006 at 10:50 pm

    I have another one: Add 100 pts if a politician wants it but DOD doesn’t.

    Reply
  15. Herschel Smith says:
    September 3, 2006 at 12:39 am

    Noah (the other one), I know exactly how my comments make me look. I meant what I said. The individual to whom I was talking discussed the alleged Bush administration’s long admiration of Nazi Germany and facistism (sic). Not only is such a notion completely irrlevant to the post, but he doesn’t know that. He just made that up. Such a comment also throws a highly charged political allegation into a technical discussion, blurring the lines in an educated (supposedly) discussion. He also alleges that no one in the military (or at least the ones operating weapons systems) has an IQ above 90. He doesn’t know that. He just made that up. Further, he doesn’t know what IQ it would take to operate the final system if it ever were to be deployed. He just made that up too. Even if there were a direct correlation between HS graduation and IQ (which is dubious at best), he doesn’t even begin to demonstrate that the weapons systems operators would have a decreased IQ compared to any time in the past, nor does he demonstrate what the present IQ is or would be. Further, he casts doubt on the ability of U.S. troops to operate such a system when it hasn’t been proven. He just made that up too. On the other hand, my post pointed in the direction of metal fatigue, stress corrossion cracking, parts and components reliability, etc., i.e., the system itself, not the people who operate it. The person making the post casts aspersions on individuals whom he does not know and whose capabilities he knows nothing about. Talking bad about people you don’t know. That’s not only easy and convenient, its irrational.

    Reply
  16. Kaltes says:
    September 3, 2006 at 2:09 am

    Metal Storm sucks.
    Being forced to carry around whole barrels factory-loaded with ammunition if you want more ammunition, instead of simply carrying more ammo, is terrible and inefficient. Being forced to rely on reloading barrels in a factory is even worse.
    The barrel(s) is/are the heaviest component of any given weapon, swapping magazines for additional barrels adds tremendous additional weight as the amount of ammo capacity needed increases. And for what? Being able to shoot off all your ammo at once? This is a GOOD thing? No… No it is not. Sure, blow all your ammo in less than a second so your weapons system is now useless until you send it back to a factory to get reloaded…
    Metal Storm is CRAP. I can’t think of any situation where conventional weaponry would be able to do a better job much more cheaply and efficiently.
    Also, it is Australian teachnology, so screw paying a foreign company license fees until the system fully proves its worth (which it never will).

    Reply
  17. David hambling says:
    September 3, 2006 at 5:31 am

    Seriously though, there are two problems with trying to spot the stupid weapon in advance:
    1) Even after the event, it’s hard to get people to agree on what the stupid weapons are. 5.56mm assault rifles? B-2 bomber: black & white elephant or outstanding warplane? Depleted uranium penetrators…?
    2) Everyone makes outrageous claims for products in order to sell them, whether it’s a five-bladed razor or a new missile. With any multi-billion projects there’s a usual curve of starting with sci-fi expectations which gradually get whittled down as it nears delivery.
    And when I say outrageous claims, I mean outrageous: look at the people claiming that the B-2 really does incorporate antigravity drive (knocked of from Zeta Reticulan tecnhology)
    In other words, you can’t judge a product by its marketing or it’s silliest supporters. Metalstorm, by using the ‘million rounds a minute’ slogan, have attracted plenty of publicity but danegrously over-inflated expectation.
    The product itself looks decent enough for special-purpose applications — not a replacement for existing systems but good for certain niche requirements.

    Reply
  18. Punisher1 says:
    September 3, 2006 at 8:23 pm

    I’ve looked into Metal Storm a couple of years back and they have come up with some interesting items. Some are good Ideas others are not.
    First off there weapon systems are simple. Nothing too complicated. No bulky feed systems that get jammed, a simplified system that could work for a few applications but not all.
    Mostly I could see them as a disposible weapon that coulbe be dropped off and used in various ways and or a qick change grenade launcher. Strapped to a combat drone is not a half bad idea eathier.
    Beyond that I think it’s all Hype.

    Reply
  19. Phil Baker says:
    September 4, 2006 at 8:43 pm

    I finished a 25 year military career as a US Army Warrant Officer; a technical expert in my field, who served in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa, as a military advisor… I have a BS in computer science, and am now working on my MBA… my IQ is significantly higher than 90… and the vast majority of military personnel I served with during my career were capable of understanding, maintaining, and using all high-tech weapons systems in combat. Most had, or were getting, a college degree.
    This included computer systems, radars, missiles, and higher classified weapons… Now; when we debate the value of the concept of a new weapon such as Metal Storm, please, please, sirs, do not stoop to idealogically motivated contempt for US Military personnel… we are not stupid for having volunteered to serve. We had to pass intensive IQ tests, and aptitude tests to qualify for careers on technically advanced equipment.
    I was a subordinate of Gen Wm Goodpaster at Nato HQ (SHAPE) in Belgium; a more intelligent and superbly educated man does not exist anywhere in the world… and I am not stupid either, thank you. Oh, yes; one year after my retirement I rose to the level of General Manager of an American corporate division in North Africa.
    By the way; Metal Storm seems to be an idea that is looking for a reason to exist… a niche solution, at best.

    Reply
  20. walter huffman says:
    September 6, 2006 at 12:24 pm

    How does this one sound as A air born barrer that flotes like A balloon.Please consider A milar bag A large one with A smaller one inside elecrticaly insulated forming A capicitor filled with Helium gas with A capulary tube for longer deployement each with A coper wire conected they form A grid wall located several feet apart​.as the wires cut the magnetic lines of force as the planet rotates A high voltage charge is built up and stored in each nodiul anything hitting this shield would discharge this charge doing damage to itself.A whole border could use this grid inexpensively what ya think???Like A tholian web on Star treck.

    Reply
  21. Senor Freebie says:
    September 1, 2007 at 10:47 pm

    Kaltes:
    How much have you looked into Metal Storm?
    Are you aware that there is a version in development, intended for delivery for the Australian army, which significantly can be loaded just like an M-203 grenade launcher?
    The reason I bring this up is because you went on about the barrel loading aspect a fair bit. Let me put this to you as a concept. Imagine an M-203 attachment which weighed the same as an M-203. Then take 2 of the grenades in the soldiers pack and add that weight to the launcher, allowing the soldier to fire 3x40mm grenades on semi-automatic.
    Is this not the concept the US was attempting to complete with the OICW? Is it not lighter? Does it not deliver more punch? In fact doesn’t it aleviate the EXACT short-comings of the OICW project which caused it to be canned?
    Additionally, on the issue of paying foreign companies, have you checked out the components in your Abrams lately? Or how about those fancy new Strykers? What about the Harriers or for that matter pretty much every Jet Engine in the USAAF.

    Reply
  22. Leafy says:
    December 18, 2007 at 8:31 am

    I have never read such a lot of mind dumbing articles from imbicles in my life. No wonder you all shoot eachother and have this fascination with comspiracy plots. I suppose you are what your President is and you get what you deserve, hey Yanks you are all on a slippery slope to hell!
    Ask the rest of the world what they think and then you may wake up your ideas of invincibility.

    Reply
  23. ANUP R. MAHESHWARI says:
    March 11, 2008 at 3:43 am

    DEAR SIR, I ANUP R. MAHESHWARI HAVE DONE B.E.MECHANICAL .I FILED PATENT ON ‘SEA WAVE POWER GENERATION’.I HAVE DESIGN OF NEW GUN.I WANT TO MAKE CAREER IN WEAPON DESIGN .I TRIED MANY TIME IN USMILLITARY BUT THEY DONT GIVE ANY RESPONSE .NOW WHAT SHOULD I DO .PLEASE GUIDE ME.
    THANK YOU.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Recent Articles
    • Blog Note
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
    • And, the Vertical Landing
    • NLOS-LS Missile Fail Could Impact Navy’s LCS
    • JFCOM’s JOE Whacks Defense Industry
    • New F-35B Hover Video
    • China’s Shipbuilding in a Regional Context
    • Debating the Pros and Cons of LCS
    Recent Comments
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      The real issue is not what type of plane but trying...
      Bill
    • Paris Hilton: Patriot
      Omg! You can find her pictures and video here...
      WebWarez
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      Marine Air Light? Wait…don't they...
      LtCol Ben
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      Except its really not that stealthy… The...
      chaos0xomega
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      Is an F-22 capable of landing even on a big deck carrier,...
      joe
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
      From a national security perspective we should do all we can to keep...
      mike
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
      Please define what is "best". Boeings plane is cheaper and...
      Curt
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      F4 was origionally a Navy Fighter, so coming up with a...
      Curt
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      The US Navy was right to bypass congress and develop the...
      Tony C
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      The fly-away cost of a F-22 is between 130 and...
      The Norwegian
  • Channels:Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty |Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money |Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network:Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz |SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps |Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program |Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy |User Agreement| © 2010 Military Advantage