Misleading title and very long article that boils down to: solo passionate inventor comes up with invention to reduce friendly fire, in one year, after suffering a friendly fire incident, and tries to get the military to adopt it, but the military does not want his particular solution.
The only testimony about why the military is not interested in his solution comes from the inventor himself. The military meanwhile does invest in different solutions, which the inventor claims are inferior.
> “I gotta give ’em credit for trying,” he said. “They spent about a billion dollars, and the thing wouldn’t work with [individual] soldiers.
To me, it seems more likely that the military has identified certain disadvantages to his proposed solution, than that there is some sort of conspiracy theory against solo inventors or this inventor specifically. I find it hard to believe that this person could come up with a solution in one year, that is superior to anything that professionals have been able to come up with after 30 years and billions of dollars of investment, but that the military dismisses his idea out of hand just because he's a solo inventor and not a big contractor.
The fact that the military has and is investing billions of dollars to try and solve friendly fire events shows they're definitely interested in reducing friendly fire, but the article over and over tries to imply the military isn't that keen on it. The title itself implies that too.
Not once in this 6000 word article is there a definitive reasoning for why his solution was rejected. It's all just conjecture and testimony from the inventor himself. Poor.
The only testimony about why the military is not interested in his solution comes from the inventor himself. The military meanwhile does invest in different solutions, which the inventor claims are inferior.
> “I gotta give ’em credit for trying,” he said. “They spent about a billion dollars, and the thing wouldn’t work with [individual] soldiers.
To me, it seems more likely that the military has identified certain disadvantages to his proposed solution, than that there is some sort of conspiracy theory against solo inventors or this inventor specifically. I find it hard to believe that this person could come up with a solution in one year, that is superior to anything that professionals have been able to come up with after 30 years and billions of dollars of investment, but that the military dismisses his idea out of hand just because he's a solo inventor and not a big contractor.
The fact that the military has and is investing billions of dollars to try and solve friendly fire events shows they're definitely interested in reducing friendly fire, but the article over and over tries to imply the military isn't that keen on it. The title itself implies that too.
Not once in this 6000 word article is there a definitive reasoning for why his solution was rejected. It's all just conjecture and testimony from the inventor himself. Poor.