Comment: The super-handy team of experts-on-demand saved the day once again by "expertly" inducing a sense of calmness and tranquility in the reader. Everything is fine, just a minor glitch, nothing to see here folks, move along!
Initial reports from a South African newspaper say the Oerlikon 35mm Mk5 anti-aircraft twin-barrelled gun jammed while firing. A female soldier tried to free the shell, but another shell was accidentally fired, causing some rounds in the gun's two near-full ammunition magazines to explode. The gun began firing again and swung in a circle, leaving nine soldiers dead and eleven wounded.
Blogs and other online news sources have suggested the incident may be due to software problems, highlighting the danger of automated weapon systems. But Jim O'Halloran of defence publication Jane's Land-Based Air Defence says the incident is more likely the result of a simple mechanical failure.
"Like many weapons these days you can fire this gun from a remote position," says O'Halloran, "but it's not a robotic weapon." While the gun is typically used with automated target-tracking systems, the decision to fire is left to the operator.
Tragic accident
"If a shell was jammed in the breech and the cordite then fired, it could set off the ammunition in the canisters," says O'Halloran. The force of that explosion could easily spin the turret around, he notes. "It's a very tragic accident, but it is not a robot gone out of control."
"I think it is bad luck more than anything else, the shells move through the gun so fast you only have to be a fraction out for something to go wrong," O'Halloran says, adding that weapons are usually subject to rigorous tests to try and ensure that they rarely, if ever, malfunction.
The Mark 5 model used by the South African army, as well as forces around the world was first produced in 1985 and is well known in the industry. "I've never heard of this kind of incident before," says O'Halloran, "and I think it is unlikely to happen again."
Comment: Let us contrast some quotes from the original story vs. the comments in the above damage control story.
Original: Young says in the 1990s the defence force's acquisitions agency, Armscor, allocated project money on a year-by-year basis, meaning programmes were often rushed. "It would not surprise me if major shortcuts were taken in the qualification of the upgrades. A system like that should never fail to the dangerous mode [rather to the safe mode], except if it was a shoddy design or a shoddy modification.
Damage Control: "I think it is bad luck more than anything else, the shells move through the gun so fast you only have to be a fraction out for something to go wrong," O'Halloran says, adding that weapons are usually subject to rigorous tests to try and ensure that they rarely, if ever, malfunction.
We find it curious that not only is our good expert lying, but even the lie is horrifying in its implications. Just what does he mean by "usually"? Do they flip a coin before deciding which weapons to test rigorously, and which are going to get the rushed, shoddy design?
As for these weapons rarely if ever malfunctioning, here's a video of another one of those shoddy autonomous weapons apparently taking its aim at certain "VIP's" which may include members of Congress! They must've forgotten to warn Congress that there is coin-flippage afoot. A minor "intelligence failure" we suppose.
On the other hand, maybe these weapons are conspiring with bands of wild monkeys to try to end the pathocracy as we certainly cannot fault either on their choice of targets. When our own weapons refuse to listen to us anymore and bands of wild monkeys take matters into their own hands one would think humanity would take notice?