PDA

View Full Version : Marines Set Their Sights With Starlight



thedrifter
01-16-07, 06:33 AM
Marines Set Their Sights With Starlight

By RICHARD LARDNER The Tampa Tribune

Published: Jan 15, 2007

TAMPA - The Marines may have been the last of the military branches to join U.S. Special Operations Command, but the Corps is the first to outfit its commandos with a sophisticated rifle sight that increases their chances of picking off targets in the dark.

The Magnum Universal Night Sight was developed by Optical Systems Technology, a small company in Freeport, Pa. The sights easily attach to sniper rifles and are permanently aligned, according to company President Paul Maxin.

"The bottom line is this is the best sight," Maxin said.

Overall, the contract, which was financed with Marine Corps money, calls for an initial delivery of 841 units at a cost of nearly $7 million. With options allowing more systems to be purchased, the deal could be worth $40 million over the next five years.

The sights will be delivered to Marine Corps Systems Command, which will parcel them out to Marine Corps Special Operations Command and other Marine units.

MARSOC was formally established in February at Camp Lejeune.

Maxin said 32 of the sights are already being used by MARSOC troops in the field, a move that reflects how much confidence they have in the system.

The MUNS weighs about three pounds, uses AA batteries and pulls in starlight to pinpoint human targets nearly a mile away.

Ironically, Socom bought and tested the MUNS, but has so far declined to purchase the system in bulk. The command has its own budget and buys much of the unique gear used by special operations forces.
'Why Hawks Win'

Is President Bush's decision to up the ante in Iraq based on his certainty success is achievable or an unwillingness to accept defeat no matter how steep the odds?

Daniel Kahneman, a Princeton psychology professor, and Jonathan Renshon, a doctoral student at Harvard, offer insights to this question in an article published in the latest issue of Foreign Policy magazine.

Their article, "Why Hawks Win," contends that leaders who are more willing to use military force are less likely to call it quits even when the prospects for winning are dim.

The authors argue hawks "prefer to avoid a certain loss in favor of a potential loss, even if they risk losing significantly more."

It's not that hawks are always wrong, they say, just that they tend to be more persuasive than they deserve to be when it comes to questions of war and peace.

"When things are going badly in a conflict, the aversion to cutting one's losses, often compounded by wishful thinking, is likely to dominate the calculus of the losing side," according to Kahneman and Renshon.

"U.S. policymakers faced this dilemma at many points in Vietnam and today in Iraq," they write. "To withdraw now is to accept a sure loss, and that option is deeply unattractive. The option of hanging on will therefore be relatively attractive, even if the chances of success are small and the cost of delaying failure is high."

Send military news to Richard Lardner, military affairs reporter, The Tampa Tribune, 200 S. Parker St., Tampa FL 33606; e-mail rlardner@tampatrib.com; or fax to (813) 259-7676.

Ellie