Questões Militares de Inglês

                                                               Text 4

         Case Study 1: Damage Assessment in the Philippines after Typhoon Haiyan

      In November 2013, Super Typhoon Haiyan devastated the city of Tacloban in the Philippines. Soon after, a case the size of a backpack arrived, accompanied by a small team of experts. This pilot project to bring in a UAV, with a range of up to five kilometers and a high-resolution video camera, to assist humanitarian responders was the work of a partnership between several private sector firms and NetHope, a consortium of NGOs.

      The Philippines lacked the necessary regulations, so the use of the UAV was cleared by a special agreement with the Mayor of Tacloban. The UAV was covered with insurance that covered damage or injury due to malfunction.

      The UAV was used first to identify where to set up a base of operations, and then to check if roads were passable, a task that could take days when done on foot or by helicopter. The UAV was also flown up the coast to evaluate damage from storm surge and flooding and to see which villages had been affected. The aerial assessments “really helped to speed up …efforts, cut down on wasted time and work, and make them more accurate in their targeting of assistance.” It was also suggested that the UAV might have located survivors in the rubble using infrared cameras if it had arrived within 72 hours.

      Interest is building in developing local capacity for using UAVs in disaster response. SkyEye Inc., a local start-up, is working with the Ateneo de Manila University to train five teams across the Philippines to locally deploy UAVs in preparation for next typhoon season.

      UAV= unmanned aerial vehicle

      NGOs= Non-Governmental Organizations

Disponível em http://www.unocha.org/about-us/publications/flagship-publications/*/72 Acesso em 15 Abr 2015. 

                                                         Text 2

                                       MATERIALS OF IMPORTANCE

                                     Carbonated Beverages Containers

      One common item that presents some interesting material property requirements is the container for carbonated beverages. The material used for this application must satisfy the following constraints: provide a barrier to the passage of carbon dioxide, which is under pressure in the container; be nontoxic, unreactive with the beverage, and, preferably be recyclable; be relatively strong, and capable of surviving a drop from a height of several feet when containing the beverage; be inexpensive and the cost to fabricate the final shape should be relatively low; if optically transparent, retain its optical clarity; and capable of being produced having different colors and/or able to be adorned with decorative labels. All three of the basic material types—metal (aluminum), ceramic (glass), and polymer (polyester plastic)—are used for carbonated beverage containers.

      All of these materials are nontoxic and unreactive with beverages. In addition, each material has its pros and cons. For example, the aluminum alloy is relatively strong (but easily dented), is a very good barrier to the diffusion of carbon dioxide, is easily recycled, beverages are cooled rapidly, and labels may be painted onto its surface. On the other hand, the cans are optically opaque, and relatively expensive to produce. Glass is impervious to the passage of carbon dioxide, is a relatively inexpensive material, may be recycled, but it cracks and fractures easily, and glass bottles are relatively heavy. Whereas the plastic is relatively strong, may be made optically transparent, is inexpensive and lightweight, and is recyclable, it is not as impervious to the passage of carbon dioxide as the aluminum and glass. For example, you may have noticed that beverages in aluminum and glass containers retain their carbonization (i.e., “fizz”) for several years, whereas those in two-liter plastic bottles “go flat” within a few months.

Disponível em https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=FA116F188700E8B6!608&ithint=file%2cpdf&app=WordPdf&authkey=!AcrrQAFlJ83JGjU Acesso em 15 Abr 2015.

                                                         Text 2

                                       MATERIALS OF IMPORTANCE

                                     Carbonated Beverages Containers

      One common item that presents some interesting material property requirements is the container for carbonated beverages. The material used for this application must satisfy the following constraints: provide a barrier to the passage of carbon dioxide, which is under pressure in the container; be nontoxic, unreactive with the beverage, and, preferably be recyclable; be relatively strong, and capable of surviving a drop from a height of several feet when containing the beverage; be inexpensive and the cost to fabricate the final shape should be relatively low; if optically transparent, retain its optical clarity; and capable of being produced having different colors and/or able to be adorned with decorative labels. All three of the basic material types—metal (aluminum), ceramic (glass), and polymer (polyester plastic)—are used for carbonated beverage containers.

      All of these materials are nontoxic and unreactive with beverages. In addition, each material has its pros and cons. For example, the aluminum alloy is relatively strong (but easily dented), is a very good barrier to the diffusion of carbon dioxide, is easily recycled, beverages are cooled rapidly, and labels may be painted onto its surface. On the other hand, the cans are optically opaque, and relatively expensive to produce. Glass is impervious to the passage of carbon dioxide, is a relatively inexpensive material, may be recycled, but it cracks and fractures easily, and glass bottles are relatively heavy. Whereas the plastic is relatively strong, may be made optically transparent, is inexpensive and lightweight, and is recyclable, it is not as impervious to the passage of carbon dioxide as the aluminum and glass. For example, you may have noticed that beverages in aluminum and glass containers retain their carbonization (i.e., “fizz”) for several years, whereas those in two-liter plastic bottles “go flat” within a few months.

Disponível em https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=FA116F188700E8B6!608&ithint=file%2cpdf&app=WordPdf&authkey=!AcrrQAFlJ83JGjU Acesso em 15 Abr 2015.

Billions of dollars spent on defeating improvised explosive devices (IED) are beginning to show what technology can and cannot do for the evolving struggle.

Two platoons of U.S. Army scouts are in a field deep in the notorious “Triangle of Death” south of Baghdad, a region of countless clashes between Sunni insurgents and Shia militias. The platoons are guided by a local man who’s warned them of pressure-plate improvised explosive devices, designed to explode when stepped on. He has assured them that he knows where the IED’s are, which means he is almost certainly a former Sunni insurgent.

The platoons come under harassing fire. It stops, but later the tension mounts again as they maneuver near an abandoned house known to shelter al-Qaeda fighters. A shot rings out; the scouts take cover. They don’t realize it’s just their local guide, with an itchy trigger finger, taking the potshot at the house. The lieutenant leading the patrol summons three riflemen to cover the abandoned house.

Then all hell breaks loose. One of the riflemen, a sergeant, steps on a pressure-plate IED. The blast badly injures him, the two other riflemen, and the lieutenant. A Navy explosives specialist along on the mission immediately springs into action, using classified gear to comb the area for more bombs. Until he gives the all clear, no one can move, not even to tend the bleeding men. Meanwhile, one of the frozen-inspace scouts notices another IED right next to him and gives a shout, provoking more combing in his area. Then a big area has to be cleared so that the medevac helicopter already on the way can land.

That incident, which took place on 7 November 2007, exhibits many of the hallmarks of the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan – a small patrol; a local man of dubious background; Navy specialists working with soldiers on dry land; and costly technologies pressed into service against cheap and crude weapons. And, most of all, death by IED.