Military-Inspired Inventions That Are Now Commonplace

Many of the daily items we utilize today were not intended for civilian use. In light of continual tensions in hotspots around the world…that will probably eventually lead to World War III (hey – minus Smokey & the Bandit III, The Matrix Revolutions & The Dark Knight Rises – who doesn’t love a trilogy??!)…here are ten modern items for which we can thank the military:

Canned Food

In 1795, the French government, concerned about the limiting availability of large quantities of food during military campaigns, offered a cash award to inventors for an efficiently cheap method of food preservation. Over the next 15 years, Nicolas Appert, a Parisian confectioner, experimented with various techniques using glass bottles; in 1810, he was awarded the prize for a process similar to pasteurization known as “appertisation,” in which the bottles were tightly sealed with a vise and placed in boiling water to cook the contents. As Appert's model became more widespread, Peter Durand, a British merchant and inventor, patented an improved process utilizing tin canisters later that same year. In 1812, Durand sold the patent to British industrialists John Hall and Bryan Donkin, who began producing canned food for the British army; six years later, Durand re-patented his invention in the United States. By 1822, canned food became a recognizable domestic staple in Britain, France and the U.S., and a fundamental necessity in conflicts from the (original) Crimean War to the Second World War.

Microwave Oven

Working for the Raytheon Corporation after World War II, Dr. Percy Spencer accidentally discovered the practical application of microwave radiation as a by-product from his research on radar technology. Noting that a candy bar in his pocket melted when exposed to the radiation, he was spurred to conduct further experiments on a way to rapidly cook food. Called the “Radarange,” Tappan, under a patent-license with Raytheon, began manufacturing units designed for home use starting in 1955. However, it would take another twelve years to develop a commercially viable countertop oven, introduced by the Amana Corporation, a Raytheon subsidiary, in 1967.

Nylon

Created by DuPont's Wallace Carothers, nylon was an anticipatory invention during the 1930s intended as a synthetic replacement for scarce Asian silk due to the impending Second World War. It was introduced commercially in a nylon-bristled toothbrush in 1938, followed more notably two years later as women’s stockings. During the war, it was used extensively in the production of parachutes, as well as other military equipment like tires and protective gear. From rope to dress shirts, nylon's application in modern society is now an inescapable reality.

Cargo Pants

A modern fashion trend, cargo pants (and the variation of shorts) were originally created for military use in the late 1930s. Designed for use by British military personnel, particularly paratroopers, the large-pocketed pants made it easier to carry military equipment like portable communication devices and extra ammunition. Unlike nylon stockings, which were an immediate hit on the fashion scene in the 1940s, it would take another sixty years for cargo pants to go from functional to fashionable.

WD-40

In 1953, Norm Larsen, founder of the Rocket Chemical Company, invented this handy lubricant as a water displacement ("WD") and corrosion inhibitor for the Atlas Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. Allegedly, it was his 40^th attempt to perfect the formula, which is a trade secret; to avoid full disclosure of its ingredients, it has never been patented. Based in San Diego, California, Larsen’s invention became commercially available in the city’s hardware stores five years later.

Duct Tape

Politics of the Olympic Games

Every four years, nations come together to compete against each other under a banner of global harmony and awareness. Traditionally, in that spirit, there is not to be political displays or statements; typically, there consistently has been such activity. To begin with, nations compete under the flag of their respective country. That alone is a political statement, engendering all notions and connotations about them. If the Olympics Games were truly meant as an apolitical event, athletes would simply compete under the International Olympic Committee (I.O.C.) flag. Instead, there is always the prideful underlying “Us vs. Them” attitude:  in 1936, it was All-American Jesse Owens against Adolph Hitler’s Nazi Germany; in 2014, the poster boy would be All-American T.J. Oshie versus Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Of course, both Owens and Oshie would humbly deny their role as geopolitical pawns, but it is present.

Then there was the issue of gay rights and Russia’s anti-gay laws even before the games began in Sochi, Russia. Many nations, including the United States, put forth stern public condemnations and sent representative delegations to underscore the issue. Not a political statement? Baloney. From Hitler to Tommie Smith and John Carlos, many world leaders, politicians and athletes have used the Olympic Games as a platform for advancing both domestic and international issues and agendas.

Putin used the games to highlight, rightly so, a glorious Russian history – absent any references to the atrocities of its past under czars and communists alike. On the international stage, what country would not do the same? Every nation, including the United States, has idealized its own history to paint a rose-colored version for future generations. (After all, the U.S. has witnessed Gone With the Wind winning an Oscar in 1940 to 12 Years A Slave winning in 2014; not only is it telling in terms of the betterment of race relations, but more importantly the changing discussion of slavery 75 and 149 years, respectively, after the American Civil War ended.) For Putin, the games were a two-fold chance to boast both to his fellow citizens and the international community, providing a picture of strength and unity against those who would challenge a modernized Russia.

Now with events unfolding in Crimea and Ukraine, the political reality is even starker. A hamstrung N.A.T.O. vs. a resurgent “Warsaw Pact,” with a naïve former community organizer poised against a calculating former KGB agent. Hollow ultimatums and empty threats from President Barack “1980s want their foreign policy back” Obama do not concern President Vladimir “only a strong Russia” Putin. Putin sees a weakened and retreating United States – in no small measure thanks to the failed domestic and foreign policies of the Obama Administration, which has further tanked the economy, gutted military/defense and infuriated allies while appeasing enemies – a European Union in disarray and a N.A.T.O. organization unable to respond without full-fledged support and sustainment from the two. Putin is playing a real-life game of Risk, and so far he has the upper hand in a bold move to test it.

President Obama’s Foreign Policy Is Based On Fantasy (Washington Post)

Why Putin Plays Our Presidents for Fools (National Journal)

Putin's Playbook: The Strategy Behind Russia's Takeover of Crimea (The Atlantic)

Years before the latest Olympic Games and the current crisis, Putin began putting the pawns into place for this scenario. During his first tenure as president, he successfully led the lobbying of the I.O.C. for hosting the Sochi games to put Russia in the spotlight, while re-igniting and asserting the flame of Russian influence throughout its surrounding regions and in the international community. Now, we are witnessing the outcome of that calculating organization, as world leaders attempting to futilely project a position of strength and authority over him play catch-up in their naivety and short-sightedness. No politics in the Olympics? Hardly. 

©2014 Steve Sagarra

As The World Turns

In the War on Terror, there were three main objectives sought by the Bush Administration:  capture or kill Osama bin Laden; decimate al Qaeda; topple the state sponsors of terrorism. Although only one was thoroughly completed - the killing of bin Laden, during President Obama's first term - all three in some form came to fruition. Despite policies and actions of the Obama Administration that have caused setbacks and stirred delusional notions, in some measure, al Qaeda was, and has been, weakened to an extent over the last decade. Further, Afghanistan and Iraq, both state sponsors of terrorism, are under the rule of governments less tolerate, theoretically, to terrorist groups and potential future allies in fighting them – again, notwithstanding the gaffes and provocations of the Obama Administration undercutting these accomplishments begun under its predecessor. This does not mean that the war is over, only that some battles have been won in a long struggle that persists today.

Now, there is the revelation that President Clinton's FBI had contact with Osama bin Laden as far back as 1993 – the same year as the Word Trade Center bombing, and eight years before the tragedy of September 11, 2001. Not to mention the numerous attacks on American territories in between, including our embassies and the USS Cole. What have most detractors concentrated on over the years? The eight MONTHS that President Bush had been in office leading up to the 9/11 attacks. Conspiracists like to describe it as an inside job for a call to arms, and I say roll with that idea if it helps you sleep better at night. Yet, the only inside job was nothing less than incompetence and outright dereliction of duty on the part of the Clinton Administration to take all measures to assure the safety and security of the United States before 9/11. For eight years.

What difference does it make now though, right? With former First Lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton contemplating a presidential run in 2016, it makes a lot of difference. From the eight years of do-nothing policies toward al Qaeda and other global threats – including Iraq, who continuously violated peace obligations and U.N. sanctions throughout the 1990s while harboring known terrorists – to the more recent Benghazi attacks, the Clintons as a whole have been more the problem than the solution. Their documented history suggests a failure to respond neither appropriately nor promptly to a crisis. With a resurgent al Qaeda and twin nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran, a Clinton in the White House is the last thing the United States needs.

This is not to say that a Bush would be welcomed. Frankly, while admiring both former presidents in their roles as elder statesmen, I wish the Clintons and Bushes would enjoy a nice retirement from politics. The United States does not need to relive the past through the partisan reminder, and baggage, that both family names connote. Instead, the nation needs fresh perspective and invigorating energy from someone who is neither entrenched nor detached domestically as well as globally. Otherwise, as Albert Einstein so plainly stated, “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” 

©2014 Steve Sagarra