A month ago, I had eye surgery.

I’m not gonna lie: I was terrified when I walked into the clinic. It’s one thing to walk into a hospital to get an appendix removed, or a broken bone reset, or something else that minimizes pain or suffering or inconvenience.

It’s another thing entirely when the thing being poked on is your way of — literally — seeing the world.

As you might imagine, the operation was a success. I don’t remember any of it. They gave me a pill to calm my nerves, which did nothing of the sort. I was on a high wire, every nerve on fire, when my wife asked if I was steady enough to walk to the car. I remember helping the nurse find a suitable vein for an IV — then nothing more. The prep, procedure, and post-op were lost in a haze of forgotten memory, a gap that restarted with a wobbly amble to our car.

The outcome of the operation was much different.

For a few days, I walked around looking like a Borg from Star Trek: one eye covered against the light, turning my head to see. I was exceedingly careful, worried about scratching anything underneath my eyelid. The unwarranted concern quickly abated. A few days into recovery, I opened my eyes wide. I was mildly disappointed to not possess the superhuman clarity I expected. Everything was blurry, too bright, and surrounded by halos.

My heart sank: I had lost part of the sense most central to our species: sight.

Soon, the meds wore off and the fog lifted. The pain of bright lights faded, and I noticed objects in sharp relief. I still felt protective of my recovering eye, but on a whim, decided on a test to check the difference between my upgraded equipment and my OEM spec.

That experience shocked me.

With my “upgraded” eye, everything was clear, in sharp contrast and definition. At a distance, I could see with a level of detail I had not experienced since my teenage years. My right eye, however, retained all the ravages of abuse and age that have slowly degraded my vision.

What was most amazing is difficult to explain: my left eye saw differently. I caught myself thinking, “Is grass really that green? Is the sky really that brilliant? Are the waves on the bay really this sparkly?” I felt I’d been missing out on a secret for decades. The world unfurled itself in glorious detail, lit up in bright, deep colors.

By contrast (pun intended), my right eye remained unchanged. I saw the world in shades of sepia, bland tones that blanketed my world in beige and fuzz. It was all comfortably familiar, and elicited a sense of “optical FOMO,” a term I’d never imagined existed.

You see, I had no other context for the world. I saw it not as it was, but as I perceived it.

This new ability to see felt like a superpower. I kept blinking my eyes, alternating between one open and closed to see the difference. It was stark. I felt like a Muggle in Harry Potter’s world, finally seeing magic for the first time.

But it wasn’t magic. This world had been there this entire time. It had been invisible, perhaps to me, but not to others.

Because everyone else sees the world through their own eyes, biased in imperceptible ways, unaware of other possibilities because they might lack the blessing of an eye operation.

If I had never had eye surgery, would I have ever discovered this new world?

We are often 100% certain that some things absolutely ARE, when they might not be. We confuse facts and experience with faith or denial. We live in bubbles, unable to craft or even find the proper language to explain something different to ourselves or others. We lack ways of discovering novel methods of experiencing the world.

That is, until something drastically changing our point of view.

It is only when we are thrust into the unexpected that we find the tools to sense differently.

And based on my experience, I would say that when we sense differently, we begin to grow.

Don’t wait until you have eye surgery. Go out into the world, do your best to see with the eyes of others, and grow.

TL;DR: Weaponizing social media with AI is an existential, global threat, which requires a disruptive solution.

Movies and headlines love to stoke our fear of an all-powerful sentient AI taking over humanity. A far more immediate and dangerous threat lurks right in our pockets: the weaponization of social media to fracture American society.

The prospect of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) — AI capable of independent thought and action — raises valid concerns. The intersection of an AGI and gene editing, the plot of science fiction novels only eighteen months ago, is now the subject of ketamine-fueled parties in Silicon Valley. But focusing on this hypothetical future distracts from the very real danger of malicious actors manipulating the algorithms at the heart of our online lives.

Take the 2020 US election. Limited AI, the kind focused on maximizing clicks and engagement, successfully manipulated individuals at the extremes of the political spectrum. Highly targeted content amplified pre-existing biases, fueled outrage, and eroded trust in established institutions. The negative impact has been unexpected and undeniable. This wasn’t sci-fi dystopia; it was real people, real divisions, unwittingly weaponized by algorithms built to monetize our attention. Otherwise reasonable people chose to inflict violence based on amplification of manufactured disinformation. Social media companies made a financial killing from incentivizing this targeted outrage.

Such manipulation is now child’s play for anyone with a basic understanding of social media algorithms and human psychology — and access to generative AI. Humans are addicted to stories, and flock to what we want to believe. We are ill-equipped to discern truth from the daily tsunami of dopamine-inducing content thrown at our primate brains. We are far less capable of scrutinizing exquisitely crafted misinformation that preys on our deepest fears. Our deeply ingrained proclivity for instant gratification makes us perfect targets for carefully designed misinformation masquerading as truth.

This vulnerability isn’t theoretical. A significant portion of our population consumes and shares fabricated stories, driven by an insatiable hunger for validation and outrage. Nothing is wrong with that choice — everyone is free to read and consume what they desire. The challenge starts when the consumption of that fiction disrupts reality. It is one thing to believe that dinosaurs are fake, the earth is flat, or the world is six thousand years old. Imposing that view on those who disagree — by ostracizing, doxing or attacking someone — is problematic. Widespread physical aggression or murder, driven by manufactured disagreement, borders on apocalyptic. Humans have long resorted to physical violence to defend fabricated narratives. What is now different and terrifying is the widespread ease of manipulating minds at scale. Access to technology has lowered the barrier to that nightmare to zero.

Exploiting this vulnerability to misinformation requires minimal effort. Foreign powers and domestic disruptors can now weaponize social media with alarming ease. Designing campaigns to trigger anger and resentment in select groups has become a daily event, providing a steady stream of tailored misinformation that exploits deep fears and biases. We experience this vitriol daily from the left and right. Social media, weaponized by AI, is a recipe for violence fueled by outrage. It is a clear and present danger to national — and global — stability.

How do we stop this? Infringing on free speech or censoring the internet are non-starters. Promoting media literacy — initiatives that equip citizens with the critical thinking skills to resist manipulation — is a necessary but insufficient step.. Relying on existing social media warnings is ineffective because of self-selection. Critical thinkers aren’t the carriers of physical disruption. The audiences who should most heed those warnings are least likely to follow them. We need to develop safeguards to insulate the most susceptible from nefarious manipulation. And we need to do so at the speed of information, not deliberation.

Think of it like defending against a biological weapon. We wouldn’t wait for a pandemic to develop a vaccine: we invest in research and prepare for unthinkable outcomes. When the outburst happens we contain it, through science and behavior. The same applies here. We can’t afford to be surprised by the next storm of manufactured violence sweeping through our feeds.

So what is the answer? Tune in for the next installment, where we propose an uncomfortably familiar solution.

Noel Zamot is the President of Atabey Group. An award-winning novelist, former combat and test aviator, business executive, and Congressional appointee, he devotes time to educating at the intersection of leadership, technology, and risk.

The greatest threat to humanity is not climate change, or nuclear war, or a global pandemic. It is something far more sinister, something that can unleash all of those apocalyptic threats — and worse.

The greatest threat to humanity is the weaponization—of truth—by AI.

The Promise

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has evolved exponentially, promising a future where “AI for all” is more than just a marketing slogan. Tech moguls, sheltered from the masses, envision a world where everyone has an “artificial assistant” at their beck and call, “augmenting their thinking” and making lives more convenient. These prophets advocate prosaic use cases: book me a haircut appointment, manage my schedule, organize my shopping list. This utopian vision of ever-present convenience, an effective vehicle for creating massive wealth, has a darker side.

Significant advancements have marked the evolution of AI, from rudimentary algorithms to target ads by monetizing your attention, to sophisticated machine learning models capable of discovering new technological, pharmacological, and genetic miracles. These advancements have opened up new unexpected possibilities in various fields — science, medicine, and astronomy — allowing us to make sense of chaos, solve complex problems, and gain deeper insights into the universe.

The Peril

They also allow us to create manufactured lies with superhuman ease. The United States lived through such an experience, facilitated by algorithms that pale in comparison to those in development.

The follow-up to the US 2020 Presidential election highlighted this problematic aspect of AI. Millions were swayed — by social media implementing comparatively puny algorithms — into believing manufactured falsehoods about the election. To this day, there are otherwise intelligent individuals who, absent a shred of evidence, insist that election was “stolen.” Lest I be accused of bias, zealots on the other side of the political spectrum gleefully defend their own illusions manufactured by optimized social media. This social media manipulation across the spectrum has a cost, whether it is incitement to violence, social cancellation, and more. Individuals manipulated into these extremes exhibits a common trait: when confronted with facts, otherwise intelligent individuals are incapable of accepting the truth. Their responses eschew any examination of critical facts, and fall into tit-for-tat rebuttals. Not accepting the bespoke reality their favorite platform has created is not a matter of opinion: it is an affront, a threat, and a justification to destroy.

This insanity — comical, were the stakes not so high — is driven by highly effective social media targeting. In little over a decade, algorithms with one aim — controlling attention spans to drive advertising dollars — have created a million realities to keep us bickering, and the money flowing. We live in a world where the ability to manufacture, deliver, and optimize facts is not an alarming development: it is simply a marketing strategy to drive sales. The Balkanization of world opinion was not driven by sophisticated discussions on intellectually complex concepts. It was driven by clickbait.

A Million Minds at War

Now imagine those algorithms on steroids, driven by an AI capable of spectacularly more accurate and subtle targeting. The outcome of such broad AI manipulation of social media consumption would be unlike anything humans have experienced. Our puny primate brains are no match for powerful algorithms designed to distill all of the world’s information into a personalized lie optimized to deliver dopamine hits. Having everyone live their own version of reality is an age-old philosophical question (“I can prove I’m conscious, but cannot prove you are”). The danger now lies in the impossibilities of the manufactured realities these machines may create. When walking through a forest, we can all agree that trees surround us. Walking through an AI-manipulated metaverse, it becomes impossible to agree on anything.

That’s the ultimate peril: the possibility of “manufactured facts” driving an internecine civil war driven by fable and myth. Humans have showed a disturbing willingness to kill and die for manufactured beliefs. We may never live to see the amazing impacts of AI on science, medicine, and astronomy, because we might be extinct from conflicts driven by misinformation and myth.

The Blind Spots of the Prophets

I can imagine the expected complaints from social media seers, tech “visionaries,” and others who see AI-augmented lives as the natural extension of human life and progress. “We can ensure fairness! We’ll program these AIs properly! It is augmentation, not manipulation!” I will respond with a simple question: would they allow their child to be the first test subject? To tether them to a constantly-present avatar designed to sell them everything, from cradle to early grave? To subject their offspring to a a scenario where at an early age, growing minds cannot distinguish between reality and fabrication? To instill in a growing mind a willingness to die and destroy based on manufactured truths?

No? The rest of the world’s minds are no different.

Luddites and the Last of Our Kind

I am not an AI Luddite. I use ML tools daily (yes, even to craft this post), and find that LLMs enable me to think at a higher level, streamlining mundane tasks. AI can revolutionize our future, enabling discoveries across the sciences and the arts. But it can also create manufactured dystopian realities (“Pedophile lizard people control the world,” “I have a right to be insulated from anyone with whom I disagree”) where misinformation reigns supreme.

How, as a species, do we fix this? I believe that the same genie that stands to destroy us might help find a cure. Using AI to monitor AI—a throwback to the most fundamental questions in philosophy—seems like a reasonable course of action. Treating AI in social media as a controlled substance is another. Just like powerful narcotics are indispensable in medicine but can also kill, AI-targeted social media can transform into a weapon, causing mass harm if not regulated. How do we implement either of those options? Should we? Ultimately, education may prove to be the answer. Instilling a healthy habit of critical thinking for future generations, placing value on sound judgment instead of consumption, may be the one act that prevents a self-inflicted apocalypse. That solution requires a long timeline, and our recent track record as a species suggests we are not up to the task.

Let’s ask ourselves a question we’ve asked too many times in the past hundred years, one far more pressing now that machines can control thought: How do we prevent us from killing ourselves?

I’m not exactly sure.

This is meant to be a tongue-in-cheek exploration of the topic. No aviators were harmed in the making of this scene.

Hacker: “So, why are we here?”

Pilot: “Haven’t you heard? It appears genetic testing has proven we’re not strangers — we’re actually related!”

Robot: “I must point out that while both of you are carbon-based, I am not.”

Pilot: “Details. We like you anyway, Chat. By the way, have you heard about the latest advancements in Mobility Tech? It’s supposed to be faster, safer, and more convenient, but apparently it comes with some serious cyber threats. Last thing I need is to get hacked while flying.”

Robot: “Of course, Chuck. As an AI, I’m always up to date on the latest technological trends. Advancements in mobility are most welcome. However, the more we connect our transportation systems, the more vulnerable they become.”

Hacker: “Speaking of vulnerabilities, did you know that most of the tools used by criminals to hack these systems are free or low cost? They’re just itching to cause chaos for money, fame, or resources. Mostly fame.”

Pilot: “Well, we can’t just sit around and wait for the bad guys to strike. Waiting until an airliner or commuter train crashes is unacceptable. Isn’t there a plan to ensure the safe expansion of mobility tech?”

Robot: “Well, Chuck, Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning can enhance cybersecurity in aviation and mobility tech. We can use private initiatives and government funding to revitalize our existing infrastructure, while keeping it safe.”

Hacker: “Right on, Chat. Two easy areas where we can make a quick impact are Anomaly Detection and Predictive Analysis.”

Pilot: “Anomaly Detection? Too many syllables. What’s that?”

Robot: “It’s when an AI trains algorithms on historical data to create a baseline understanding of normal system behavior. Then it monitors for any unusual patterns or activities that deviate from the norm, flagging them as potential cyber threats.”

Hacker: “You can pull ten g’s and you didn’t know that?”

Pilot: “My IQ is directly proportional to my groundspeed.”

Hacker: “Hmph. Figures. Guess you don’t know anything about Predictive Analysis, huh?”

Pilot: “Sounds like something our intel brief would cover.”

Hacker: “They probably use it already. Predictive Analysis is when an AI analyzes historical data to find trends. You can use those to predict and identify potential vulnerabilities in OT systems.”

Pilot: “Well, that’s cool. You’re saying we can use that information to address security weaknesses before they become exploitable?”

Robot: “Precisely. With the proper application of AI tools, we can secure these complex systems and mitigate cyber threats against them. Whenever public funds are used to improve mobility infrastructure, policy makers should insist on investing in cutting-edge tools to preemptively identify and mitigate cyber threats.”

Pilot: “That sounds like a lot of money.”

Hacker: “Not necessarily. But imagine not doing anything. My homies on the other side of the fence would have a field day with your OT.”

Pilot: “OT? Like in Overtime?”

Hacker: “Like in Operational Technology. The hardware and software that control and monitor all the physical stuff in industrial environments. In flying and mobility tech, they’re the systems that ensure safety and reliability. In your case, we’re talking air traffic control, navigation, communication, and vehicle systems management. The IT stuff that’s not email, you know?”

PIlot: “So, like the pointy end of computers?”

Hacker: “That’s one way to look at it. The computers that run the physical stuff. They’re pretty old, and most places ignore them. They are easy targets, especially in things like utilities and power.”

Pilot: “How often do those get hacked?

Hacker: “All. The. Time. Most hackers think OT is actually the weakest link in most systems.”

Robot: “Allow me to provide some numbers. The probability that a transportation system will suffer a cyber attack in the coming decade is ONE, which meants it is a certainty. The only question is how severe the consequence might be. Do policy makers have a reasonable choice to NOT invest in cyber defense of operational technology? Especially now that AI and ML can make such cyber-defense so cost-effective?”

Pilot: “Chat, you had me at ‘prompt.’ Good point.”

Hacker: “Well, it looks like we’ve got our work cut out for us. The tech part is the easiest!”

Pilot: “I agree. Getting the policy to follow will be the challenge. But first, a toast.”

Robot: “I have no mouth.”

Hacker: “I only consume energy drinks and guacamole.”

Pilot: “Are you serious? And why don’t you have a name?”

Hacker: “I’m not serious. I’m Anonymous.”

Pilot: “Check, please!”

Noel Zamot is the founder of Atabey Group, and advisory firm focused on aviation cybersecurity, national security, and energy transition. He is the former Commander of the USAF’s elite Test Pilot School, an award-winning author, and former economic development executive. Six years ago he launched a firm to analyze aviation systems for cybersecurity risk. All of his dire “I told you so” warnings are now coming home to roost. Agree? Disagree? Drop him a line at noel@noelzamot.com

The Disruptive Potential of REE Recovery from Coal Waste

Recovering REEs from coal waste is a disruptive economic force. It addresses two significant challenges: the limited availability of these critical materials, and the environmental damage caused by coal mining. The dual effect of reclaiming REEs and remediating environmental damage unlocks a new, sustainable source for these materials and opens the door for growth in renewables technology.

Reclaiming REEs from coal waste not only diverts valuable materials from entering landfills or polluting the environment, but also reduces the need for traditional mining, which often leads to deforestation, soil and water contamination, and loss of biodiversity. The vast amounts of coal waste generated worldwide are, paradoxically, now fertile ground to create more sustainable and localized supply chains.

As the demand for REEs continues to grow, reclaiming them from coal waste offers a viable alternative to the current reliance on China, which dominates the market with approximately 85% of global production. This shift has the potential to reduce geopolitical tensions and promote economic growth in countries that have abundant coal waste, such as the United States, Australia, and India.

Catalyzing Growth in Renewables Technology

The availability of REEs is crucial to the development of renewable energy technologies, such as wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicles, which require these elements for their high-performance magnets and electronics. By increasing the supply of REEs through coal waste reclamation, we can facilitate the growth of renewables technology in the West, and accelerate the transition to a greener, more sustainable global economy.

Wind turbines, for example, require neodymium and dysprosium for their high-performance magnets, while solar panels rely on the unique properties of elements such as indium and gallium. The electric vehicle revolution, driven by the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, depends on REEs like lithium, cobalt, nickel, and neodymium for battery production. By reclaiming these elements from coal waste, we can provide a steady supply of crucial materials to these industries, fostering innovation and promoting widespread adoption of clean energy technologies.

Environmental and Economic Benefits

Extracting REEs from coal waste also has the added benefit of remediating the environmental damage caused by coal mining. Conventional coal mining practices result in vast amounts of waste material, including coal ash and acid mine drainage, which can contaminate soil, groundwater, and surface water. Methods for REE extraction at scale also allow for the treatment and stabilization of these waste material deposits, reducing their environmental impact and contributing to cleaner, healthier communities.

What VeriMetallum will do

To fulfill the growing demand for rare earth elements (REEs) and critical minerals (CMs), VeriMetallum, a rare earth reclamation company, embarked on an ambitious plan to revolutionize the industry. By adapting existing technologies and fostering key partnerships, VeriMetallum aims to effectively capture coal waste at scale, and extract valuable REEs and CMs, reducing the environmental impact of coal mining and contributing to a greener, more sustainable global economy.

Adapting Existing Technologies

VeriMetallum recognizes the importance of harnessing and adapting existing technologies to better capture coal waste. The company has established partnerships to optimize existing coal waste processing techniques. By improving efficiency and reducing operational footprint, VeriMetallum aims to maximize the recovery of REEs and CMs by enabling more sites to be remediated via mobile, on premise processing which does not require lengthy permitting and construction timelines.

VeriMetallum is exploring the potential of integrating artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) algorithms into the coal waste processing pipeline. Using historical datasets, VeriMetallum will develop systems to identify and predict the presence of REEs and CMs in coal waste. Combined with spot testing, this approach enables more targeted, efficient and cost-effective extraction. Harnessing the power of AI and ML allows VeriMetallum to push the boundaries of REE and CM reclamation and establish itself as a leader in this emerging industry.

Strategic Partnerships and Collaboration

Collaboration is at the heart of VeriMetallum’s approach to fulfilling the REE and CM demand. The company has established strategic partnerships with firms specializing in dredging, processing, extraction, and treatment. These partnerships enable VeriMetallum to process a variety of sources of coal waste, optimize extraction of REE and CM, which ultimately leads to a more streamlined and effective supply chain.

VeriMetallum will continue to seek alliances with research institutions and universities to advance the science behind REE and CM reclamation from coal waste. These collaborations enable the company to stay at the forefront of innovation and ensure that the latest scientific breakthroughs are incorporated into their operations.

The ability to reclaim rare earth elements from coal waste represents a disruptive economic force with the potential to reshape the REE market, drive growth in renewables technology, and mitigate the environmental damage caused by coal mining. Investment in this innovative approach, is far more than a brilliant financial decision. By creating sustainable supply chains for these critical materials, VeriMetallum will support the global transition to a greener economy, creating a cleaner, healthier environment for future generations.

Noel Zamot is CEO and Managing Director at VeriMetallum, a company devoted to increasing the global supply of materials required by tomorrow’s economy.

How do you flight test an AI? How do you ensure a robot flying an airplane can’t be hacked?

Artificial Intelligence (AI), cybersecurity, and aviation are fields that most people experience in daily life. You’ve likely asked Siri, Alexa or “Hey Google” for something today; logged in somewhere with a password; and received something on your doorstep from a large online retailer. These isolated manifestations interact in various ways. Although most people may not consider the intersection of these three fields, their synergy is complex. AI has the potential to revolutionize the aviation industry, making it safer, more efficient, and cost-effective. However, this also comes with new cybersecurity risks that need to be addressed. Surprisingly, some of those risks might be fixed with AI tools.

Cybersecurity for Aviation seems to be a topic that only comes up when YouTubers claim to hack into engines through inflight entertainment systems. Yet the real challenges are significant. Imagine autopilot, radar surveillance, or air traffic information being disrupted or manipulated. On approach to a major airport, a cyber attack would be catastrophic.

Similarly, AI in aviation is something we are only now beginning to discuss. We’ve had “light AI” in military aviation for years as flight path, mission, and targeting optimization, among others. But imagine single-pilot overwater operations, where a “resident” AI (part of the autopilot or flight management system) can not only fly the airplane (which we’ve done for decades) but automatically manage the flight through adverse weather, malfunctions, traffic, or other incidents. The technology exists now to make this possible. The only obstacles are policy and public acceptance.

As we move forward with artificial intelligence in aviation, we’ll need to better understand fundamentals of cyber security. One of those areas is the topic of Operational vs Informational technology. One of the fundamental differences between operational technology (OT) and informational technology (IT) is that OT systems are designed to control and monitor physical processes, while IT systems manage information. In the aviation industry, OT systems include flight control systems, air traffic management systems, and aircraft maintenance systems, while IT systems include passenger reservation systems, flight planning systems, and airport security systems. Although both aspects need to be addressed, OT presents a greater challenge. Legacy aviation systems and architectures rarely accounted for IT security in their initial design

Both OT and IT systems are critical to the aviation industry, but they have different security requirements. OT systems are typically designed to be resilient and to operate in real-time, so that they can respond to changes in physical processes. They are often more vulnerable to cyber attacks because they routinely use legacy equipment directly connected to physical processes. In contrast, IT systems are designed to be flexible and to process large amounts of data, but are fundamentally more at risk because they are connected to the internet.

The intersection of AI, cybersecurity, and aviation raises important questions about how to evaluate these systems, and how to ensure that AI technologies are used responsibly. One of the biggest challenges is to ensure that AI algorithms are robust and trustworthy. This means that they should be designed to operate securely and to detect and respond to anomalies and security threats.

How do we ensure AI systems can operate in the complex and dynamic environment of the aviation industry? This requires that AI algorithms be able to adapt to changing conditions and to consider multiple sources of data and information. For example, an AI-powered air traffic control system must be able to deal with real-time information about weather, flight paths, and aircraft performance. Testing of these systems, therefore, needs to stress flexibility and correct outcomes.

So…how do we flight test an AI? This is a new frontier. We’ve known how to test autonomous systems for some time now. Your average flight test professional knows how to build an experiment to predict and validate the behavior of autopilots, guidance systems, and other mission heuristics. Artificial Intelligence presents that challenge, but orders of magnitude more complex. When you add in the requirements to continue the mission despite information attack, we see how testing and certification of AI based aviation systems can become a serious challenge.

The intersection of AI, cybersecurity, and aviation is an area which will require significant attention and investment. While AI has the potential to revolutionize the aviation industry, it also brings new challenges that need to be addressed, tested, and validated. No one expects that ChatGPT or Bard will fly an airplane anytime soon. And yet, no one expected those chatbots to transform education, creative writing, coding and more in mere months. Ensuring that AI systems are secure, trustworthy, and able to operate in complex and dynamic environments — to include contested cyberspace — will be critical to ensuring the long-term success of the aviation industry.

Noel Zamot is the former Commander of the USAF’s elite Test Pilot School, an award-winning author, and former economic development executive. Six years ago he launched a firm to analyze aviation systems for cybersecurity risk. All of his “I told you so” warnings are now coming home to roost. Agree? Disagree? Drop him a line at noel@noelzamot.com

What is the big deal with this? Why should I care?

In this post I’ll share some opinions, based on personal experience at the intersection of military aviation and National Security. Why should you care about those ? I’ll leave that up to you.

What happened?

A Chinese “Weather” Balloon transited the US for approximately a week. It appears to be a high-altitude vehicle, ostensibly for weather observations. The Chinese government apologized for the event, stating it was an “accident” that the balloon became unmoored, hitched a ride on the jet stream, and traveled over the continental US and Canada.

What REALLY happened?

This isn’t a weather balloon. A normal weather balloon goes up, deploys sensors via parachute, then returns to earth, by puncturing or damaging the balloon itself. The range of such weather balloons in in the tens of miles. The Chinese balloon was 3 times the size of a normal weather balloon, has been airborne over a week, and traveled thousands of miles in challenging atmospheric conditions.

What do I think happened?

This balloon was a test. The Chinese government (or military, or both, since they are the same thing) are testing methods for getting payloads over the continental US. If you recall, the jet stream dipped to the midwestern states, bringing dangerously cold weather as far south as Texas. This provides a great opportunity to float something which would “hitch a ride” on that jet stream and overfly key bases (Malmstrom AFB, MT, Offutt AFB, NE, Whiteman AFB MO). It is important to note that the path of the balloon varied somewhat from the jet stream or air currents below it. I assume the balloon had capability to “steer” by adjusting its altitude to reach different levels of the atmosphere (with wind currents in different directions) and thus adjust its ground track. Google (Alphabet) famously did that for its “Loon” program some years ago. This approach provides limited steering, but even a dozen miles of change would be enough. That would be the most important finding: a balloon which can adjust its ground track autonomously from half a world away, based on off-board weather data, likely from existing NOAA wind maps.

Why did the Chinese do it?

Many reasons. I suspect they did it to see how the US reacted. The Chinese might want to know how the US shoots down something over its landmass. If so, they would have likely pre-positioned someone in the path of the vehicle overland, hoping to gain insight into what weapons were used to shoot down the balloon. The US waited until the balloon was over Atlantic territorial waters, where Chinese surveillance activity might be more easily monitored, and where the debris can be easily recovered — instead of finding the remains of a school bus dropped from ten miles. Spoiler alert: had we shot it over land, there wouldn’t be much left to analyze, even if it didn’t fall on someone’s backyard — or someone’s schoolyard. Whatever did survive would’ve likely been picked up by assets already in place. Yes, Virginia, we are in a quiet global war.

Why didn’t we shoot it earlier?

See above. We saw this coming—literally—many miles away. Adversary satellites fly over US military bases multiple times a day. We’ve been forced to become quite adept at hiding our secrets from eyes in the sky. Shooting the balloon over land would’ve given the Chinese valuable intelligence: how we vector our military aircraft during contingencies, how we engage non-standard targets, and what weapons and tactics we use. Doing all of this in a chunk of ocean that we own — a continent away from the Pacific — keeps our operations protected (even in the age of live, open source video), and allows us to scoop up the debris for analysis, without risking destruction over land. We know it is difficult to find debris in the ocean. Good thing our Navy does it daily. The US likely gained more intelligence by observing the balloon — across a multitude of spectra — than China gained by flying it over sites which could prepare for its arrival.

Was there a risk the US gave China an intelligence windfall?

Highly unlikely. One thing is not accessible to the dozens of Chinese satellites passing daily over the US: electronics intelligence, or ELINT. ELINT gathered from space (through satellites) is problematic because of other electromagnetic noise. Imagine listening to a whisper across a busy highway using a straw and you understand the challenge. A balloon ten miles up would have a much easier time vacuuming up radio, radar, Wi-Fi, cell phone, tactical radio, and other signals, compared to a satellite one hundred miles distant. The Chinese already spy our internet (surprise!), but there are important things the US still hides from the web (don’t tell TikTok). We are very good at hiding our goodies from eyes in the sky, or eyes in the interwebs. So there is very little the balloon could have obtained that we did not have enough time to hide. Again, their biggest windfall would be to learn how we react to such an incursion. We did not give them that gift.

How did we shoot it down?

The press is reporting that an F-22 shot the balloon down with an AIM-9 missile, a very common weapon in our arsenal. Other information and insider reports seems to confirm this. Analysis of publicly available information yields fascinating information.

The F-22 / AIM-9 combination had no difficulty shooting down a target high in the sky. We could’ve done it earlier. We chose not to, for what I think are excellent reasons.

The AIM-9 (which stands for “Air Intercept Missile, series 9) had MORE than enough energy when it hit the target. By my calculations, an F-22 flying around 48,000’ above mean sea level (my estimate of a sweet spot in their envelope) shooting at a target at 60,000’ would have a slant range around 8 nautical miles (just over 9 standard, or statute, miles). This means the weapon was WELL WITHIN its envelope. FAAFO.

The weapon did not fuze when it hit the target. In other words: the missile hit the balloon but did not explode. Malfunction? Hardly. I’d call it brilliant. This seems intentional. The missile punctured the balloon, leaving the payload to plummet intact into the ocean, where US Navy ships, aided by intelligence, will locate, recover, analyze, and exploit the payload. That part won’t be in the news. The Chinese are proably not thrilled to know the US can bring down stuff from the sky relatively intact, then peer into it. The US will perform sophisticated reverse engineering on those goodies. I’m jealous of my colleagues in the intel community, who will have a ball.

So what is next?

In the world of Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, and — LOOK! SHINY OBJECT! — the furor over the Chinese balloon will evaporate by the next episode of Saturday Night Live. No one in the public will know, nor care. US intelligence services, on the other hand, will have a field day discovering why the Chinese did this. No one will publicly share those findings. Years from now we may learn of some tech employees, influencers, hedge fund managers, and/or college professors arrested as they suddenly tried to leave the US mainland sometime on 5 February 2023. This will be quiet and anonymous, but we’ll find out that the balloon incident, far from being a “mistake”, was a meticulously planned event which showed us the tip of the iceberg in a global war that precious few know is ongoing.

What do you think? Is this based in reality, or the delusions of a has-been? Let me know your thoughts at noel@noelzamot.com.

Thanks for reading!

I served on the Financial Oversight Board for almost two years, in a role far removed from the debt negotiations which have dominated the island’s financial news. For that time, I was assigned to congressionally mandated role under Public Law 114–187, otherwise known as PROMESA. That role, with the obscure and highly inaccurate title of “Revitalization Coordinator,” was the first, and so far only, position created by Federal law focused on outside investment for Puerto Rico’s economic development. The job was simple, yet complex: bring in outside investment to assist in rebuilding the island’s infrastructure, and do so without further burdening an already suffering population. We began our journey three months before hurricane Maria with a few canned pages on an unpublished website. Less than two years later, I turned the keys over to an investment pipeline valued at approximately $8 billion. This represented dozens of international investors wanting to do business on the island, going through a Federally sanctioned, transparent, open process.

Not a single project that we evaluated was ever adopted by the local government. The reasons for this are manifold, but point to the true cause of Puerto Rico’s financial woes.

In the aftermath of Judge Swain’s decision, several colleagues reached out privately for my opinions on the ruling. Although a good first step, I reminded them, a much tougher road lies ahead. Consider this uncomfortable metaphor: Your cousin [the local government] gets addicted to meth [debt] and loses his money, house and car. Your family [Congress] stages an intervention [appointing an oversight board]. Instead of getting him clean [auditing debt], finding him a job [attracting transparent investment and growing industry], and putting him into treatment [structural reforms and constitutionally mandated balanced budgets]. . .you refinanced his credit card with a debt-consolidation loan. Although uncomfortable to the point of being insulting, the metaphor captures the root causes of misfortune for Puerto Rico’s residents.

First, and least reported: Full exit from the Oversight Board will require four consecutive balanced budgets by the Government of PR. Most experts consider that inconceivable at best. The current adversarial atmosphere in the Puerto Rico Legislature is less a barrier than the myriad promises elected officials must keep. There are no meaningful changes to ethics rules, despite recent scandals involving alleged “pay to play” schemes by municipal mayors across both main political parties. In short, there is no incentive — except the desire to be rid of the oversight board — for fiscal responsibility.

Second, and perhaps most importantly, there are no meaningful structural changes to PR Government processes. This means that the mechanisms that put PR into bankruptcy have not changed. There has been no credible procurement reform, no government right-sizing, no lasting business initiatives to grow the vanishing middle class, etc. Had structural changes been imposed early on (efficient tax collection, effective use of tax dollars, transparency in procurement, repeal of laws that protect oligopolies, consolidation of duplicative government services/structure, and more), many experts agree that PR could’ve paid a portion of the debt and avoided bankruptcy altogether.

Most macro indicators for the island (birth rates, size of middle class, employment rate, public school test results, homicides per capita, expenditures per student per capita indexed to outcomes) are trending in a highly negative direction. This is coupled with an influx of investor capital that has zero impact on the broader economy. The result is an ongoing Balkanization of the island never previously seen in any US territory, and continued brain-drain as the middle and professional class flee to the US mainland.

Absent structural change, PR will continue to pay more for debt (due to higher risk) than anytime in its history. There is a large portion of the body politic who laughs off this challenge. “After all,” they say, “we'll get millions in US Federal money.” This is true to a certain extent. The current administration has removed several roadblocks, enabling already appropriated recovery funds to finally arrive on the island. Federal inflows to Puerto Rico in the form of Social Security, veterans and healthcare payments are sizable and will not be turned off anytime soon. This explains the strength of the local banking system, one whose strength lies in unending remittances from Uncle Sam.

This strategy, however, is shortsighted. A decade on, the impact of millions in ARRA funds (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) remains unseen, their benefit limited to filling budget shortfalls caused by the local government’s inefficiency. A wary future Congress, responsible for appropriating US taxpayer funds, seems unlikely to allow the same level of fiscal mismanagement. Although the past administration admittedly had separate (and punitive) rulebooks for the island’s Federal disbursements, I have personally heard bipartisan concern with the inability of the local government to properly manage Federal funds. This quiet concern will continue to limit future Federal disbursements to a relative trickle until the island’s processes are demonstrably fixed. Relying on Federal funding to bypass government inefficiency is as preposterous a strategy as planning for a comfortable retirement by playing Powerball.

What can we expect? Without significant structural change, I firmly believe Puerto Rico will return to bankruptcy within 10 years, if not earlier. Every macro indicator is trending in the wrong direction. What can be done? Had I been asked that question five years ago my answer would’ve been simple: “We are doing the right thing. The oversight board will provide necessary discipline to the local government.” Alas, that did not come to pass. The oversight board has been successful in negotiating a very difficult debt reduction, and for that they should be proud. What they were unable to address were political forces internal and external to the island, forces which kept change at bay under the guise of “trampling sovereign rights,”“imposing a political culture,” or “unfair expectations.” This prevented the implementation of the singular initiative which spelled different outcomes of control boards in other jurisdictions: the imposition (and I use the word intentionally) of fiscal discipline through structural change.

I fully expect to be dismissed, pilloried and insulted by many who claim that everything revolves around financial structure, others who will find my unwillingness to accept Puerto Rico as a sovereign state “offensive,” or those who see the economic Balkanization of my birthplace as innocent and harmless fiscal gentrification. I’ll let history judge whether a partial debt renegotiation will be sufficient to reverse three decades of political mismanagement. I desperately hope that I’m wrong in my assessment of the future of Puerto Rico. But I don’t believe so.

Noel Zamot, a native of Puerto Rico, served two years on Puerto Rico’s oversight board. He is a combat veteran with 25 years of service in the US Air Force and a graduate of MIT, the University of Michigan, and the Sloan School of Management.

We often wonder how we will respond to the death of a parent. Although we steel ourselves for the inevitable call, we are never fully prepared when the day arrives. My wife and I were enjoying a long walk on a beautiful day when, in an instant, our lives changed.

My father woke up to a sunny day, had breakfast with his wife of fifty-seven years, and read the news about the improbable win of his beloved LA Rams with glee. He repaired to his home office after lunch to complete a long session of continuing legal education — he remained an active attorney into his eighties. His last moments were spent at home, in comfort, sharing the precious and simple treasures of life with my mother. In the autumn of his days, my father was still learning, still growing, still brimming with intellectual curiosity.

“Abuco,” the name given to him by his first grandson when barely a toddler, was a devoted and generous husband, father, grandfather, and father-in-law. He unconditionally adored and supported his family. Throughout his life he encouraged us to do the same. He took time and interest to share the daily wonders of life: bits of hard-earned wisdom, life experiences, his own analysis of current affairs. He was a student of history, devoured biographies of luminaries, and loved to sit and read — and re-read — works of legal fiction. The beauty of nature held him in constant awe. Almost every day he would post pictures of his plants and flowers to our family message group, providing commentary on the birds and animals who visited his yard. His eyes lit up whenever he shared the wonders of science and the subtleties of the world around us. He loved riding his bike — ignoring all traffic signage despite my impassioned pleas— watching and playing tennis, and learning anything new. He taught me how to fish and make fire without matches, how to drive a stick shift and pick out ripe avocados; how to write essays and speak in public; how to learn from defeat and be humble in victory.

Most of all, he taught me — by example — how to be a good husband, a good father, a good man.

Abuco leaves a life-sized chasm in our lives. Everything I have become in my life I owe, in some way, to him. Difficult days lie ahead for all of our extended family. Yet I am comforted in knowing that he did not suffer, that he was surrounded by family and loved ones to his last day, and that he passed in peace, still seeking to grow. I cannot think of a better legacy. May God bless his soul and receive him with open arms in Heaven.

“Ma’am, are you okay?”

“My car won’t start,” the woman barely held back tears of confusion and shame. “I don’t know what happened.”

I clipped out of my pedals, leaned my bike against the LEFT TURN ONLY sign, and aimed the eye-piercing red flasher against oncoming cars. Neither of us needed to be in a traffic accident a lazy and humid Sunday morning.

“Let’s get you out of the car and onto the sidewalk, ma’am. We need to get you out of the street and under some shade.”

“Thank you so much.” She sounded southern and apologetic. “I don’t know what happened.” She fumbled keys and a wallet into her purse and asked if she could hold my arm as she stepped onto the street.

“I’m shaking so much I couldn’t dial AAA,” she whispered. She wore a baby blue short coat over her Sunday best, with cream-colored low pumps which seemed too big for her thin frame. Two sets of glasses perched on her thin nose. She needed readers and prescription lenses to read her carefully-laminated insurance card. A disposable facemask hung limp under her gaunt chin. She was so frail I feared the bow wave of a passing truck would send her flying to the ground.

She was ninety-two, she said, widowed twelve years. The car was old but reliable, and had never before given her any trouble. I asked for her keys — if she felt comfortable doing so — and ran a quick check. Starter is good, air conditioner and lights off, battery seemed fine, fuel gauge says —

“Ma’am, it seems you ran out of gas.”

“That can’t be.” She sounded alarmed and apologetic. “I filled up last week,” she said, then brought up a wrinkled hand to her mouth in alarm. “Oh, no. Do you think someone might have emptied my tank?” She lived in a nice trailer park north of here, she confided, and most of her neighbors were nice. Most of them.

“Maybe,” I said. “Let’s get you out of the street first, ma’am. We’ll fix this.”

A woman in tights and headphones stopped in the sidewalk as her panting husky flopped under a massive oak. “Are you both okay?” she yelled.

“We are,” I answered. The old lady held my arm as I clacked across the street in my cleated cycling shoes. She weighed almost nothing. “Looks like she ran out of gas.”

We reached the curb, a haven from traffic distracted with the Buick stuck in the intersection. The woman by the oak tree — Debbie — smiled and asked questions, and told the older lady she loved the color of her coat. “You look so pretty and colorful!” she beamed, and the old lady blushed. We had yet to call AAA, but the old lady now seemed calm, thankful and relieved.

A few seconds later, a bald man in a loud white truck stopped behind the Buick. “You guys okay?”

Yes, we answered. Car died. Battery’s good, but it looks like she ran out of gas. We’re trying to call AAA.

“Don’t worry about that. I live around here. I’ll get you some gas. Gimme 10 minutes. ” The man squealed a tight U-turn and sped off.

Her name was Billie. She was headed to church when her car died at the intersection. She lived alone, despite her daughters’ protests, and planned to finally move up with them in North Carolina in the spring. She’d enjoyed watching both the Rays and Bucs games last night, even though she’d watched them alone. She felt fortunate to take no prescription medication at her age: someone in her family had died of COVID two months ago. She missed seasons and her granddaughters. Her daughters wanted her to find help for her chores, but she said housework kept her busy and sane. We talked about Tom Brady and New England, home prices in Florida, her church group, and escaping the cold.

Debbie patted her dog and smiled, sympathizing with home prices, family and the Bucs. She kept Billie engaged and comfortable and happy. Billie forgot all about her dead car, calling AAA, and missing church.

A few minutes later, the man in the truck rolled back. I helped him pour two gallons of gas into the Buick. Black mold enveloped the gas cap, evidence of lengthy intervals between fill-ups. We spilled only a little bit.

I stepped on the gas pedal a few times to prime the fuel pump before cranking the engine. I’d last run out of gas in high school, now close to thirty five years in the past. Billie had never been though this. She’d never dealt with any car emergency before today. Until twelve years ago, she’d never needed to.

After a few sputters the car started. Two gallons. Probably thirty miles range for the Buick. Enough to get her to a gas station. She could make the end of church service after that.

“My goodness, thank you all so much. . .” she beamed in disbelief, and rifled through her wallet. I saw a folded fifty in mad money next to a dog-eared five dollar bill. The wallet was very thin, not-too-old. No pictures. Billie’s hands still shook, but not because of fear.

The bald man — Rory — shook his head.

“You don’t owe us anything ma’am. We gotta take care of each other.”

I smiled at Billie. “You probably need to fill up before you go to church.”

She thanked us profusely, the desperate gratitude of someone struggling to convey how much meaning a kind act can hold. The three of us waved goodbye after making sure she was buckled in, the hazard lights were off, and she had her belongings with her. She smiled sweetly and drove away, out of our lives forever. I clipped in, thanked Debbie and Rory, and raced the wind south. I felt strong and fast, thankful and alive.

In my haste to ensure her safety, I forgot to ask Billie for one favor.

“When you get to church, please pray for us. We all need more opportunities to show grace.”