GREEK FIRM CLAIMS BREAKTHROUGH IED TECHNOLOGY--

C O N F I D E N T I A L ATHENS 000790

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/16/2032
TAGS: GR
SUBJECT: GREEK FIRM CLAIMS BREAKTHROUGH IED TECHNOLOGY--
BUT IS IT REAL?


Classified By: DCM THOMAS COUNTRYMAN. REASONS 1.4 (B) AND (D).


1. (C) SUMMARY: On 13-14 April 2007, Embassy DATT, ODC
representative, and PolOff visited Soukos Robots facilities
in Larissa. The purpose of the visit was to gather
information on and/or solicit a demonstration of an invention
that Konstantinos Soukos claims can identify and disable
improvised explosive devices (IEDs) from over a hundred
meters. Although he believes he is being treated poorly by
his American counterparts at Raytheon, Soukos nonetheless
insists that he wants to transfer his anti-IED technology to
the American military or an American firm. Unfortunately,
Soukos was extremely reticent to divulge any hard information
that could convince responsible parties in the USG or DoD of
the viability of his invention, citing secrecy concerns. END
SUMMARY.

SOUKOS ROBOTS
--------------

2. (C) Konstantinos Soukos is chairman, president, and the
principal driving force behind Soukos Robots. His
bomb-disposal robots Odysseas (Odysseus) and Iraklis
(Hercules) are currently in use at the Athens International
Airport (documented); Soukos claims he has also sold similar
systems in the United States. (Demonstration models on the
showroom floor exhibited American flag stickers.) Soukos
also designs and sells industrial robots and various military
devices. Soukos is currently in a estimated $31 million
partnership with Raytheon to market a version of Soukos'
electronic anti-RPG armor. Soukos Robots corporation was
founded in 1979 and employs approximately 60 people. Soukos
has a well-deserved reputation as an intelligent and creative
designer. By all appearances, however, he operates his
business on personal charisma, to the detriment of
contractual obligations and legal frameworks. He is highly
concerned with the secrecy of his operations: the
headquarters facility visited was surrounded by extensive
razor wire fencing, numerous cameras, and private guards.
Security arrangements at a second facility (under
construction) were less visible. Because of his obsession
with secrecy, Soukos does not acknowledge the existence of
any other facilities, although it is obvious that the various
robots on display were not fabricated, and likely not even
designed, in the acknowledged headquarters building and
under-construction factory.

COMPLAINTS ABOUT RAYTHEON
--------------

3. (C) In extensive conversation, Soukos frequently
complained of his relationship with Raytheon. Most recently,
he was stunned by the need to receive permission to view the
classified results of Aberdeen Proving Grounds tests of his
anti-RPG product. DATT advised him to fill out the necessary
paperwork because this was a government regulation. Soukos
also complained that Raytheon was making excuses to avoid
paying the $30 million-plus he claims he is owed and
furthermore Raytheon hinted that it would require further
contracts for future technologies before making payment.
Embassy delegation was unable to verify the claim, but DATT
advised Soukos that U.S. law prohibits extortion and corrupt
practices by U.S. companies operating overseas. Soukos'
obsession with secrecy was also evident in his strong
objection to Raytheon submitting a patent application for the
technology because "the next day, the whole world will know
Soukos' secrets!"

ANTI-IED TECHNOLOGY
--------------

4. (C) When discussing the promised anti-IED technology,
Soukos gave few details of its operation. He promised that
the device could both detect and disable IEDs from a long
range. Soukos emphasized that the device does not "smell"
explosives, nor does it use an EMP to disable them. He
refused to elaborate on what his invention actually did,
focusing only on what it did not do.


5. (C) Video footage playing on screens in the background of
his office, however, showed images of the technology in use.
The video showed a split-screen clip of a field in which
three explosive devices were hidden; along the top of the
screen, a standard video camera feed was used, while on the
bottom, the three explosive devices were illuminated
white-hot against a high-contrast grayscale background.
Interestingly, anecdotal evidence indicates that moss growing
on nearby trees was also illuminated in one test of the
technology. PolOff viewed prototype of the purported
anti-IED device, and observed that the device was likely to
use some sort of directed electromagnetic radiation -- a
category that includes visible light, infrared, ultraviolet,
x-ray, gamma ray, and numerous other exotic-sounding
frequencies -- on the basis of the 4 scope-like apparata

employed. It is plausible that electromagetic radiation
could be used to create the video footage on display, since
visible light is a form of electromagnetic radiation used to
create standard video. There is, however, absolutely no hint
as to how Soukos plans to disable the IEDs once found. As
previously stated, Soukos would not disclose even the basic
physical principles of how the device worked, citing secrecy
concerns.

PRO-U.S. MOTIVATION
--------------

6. (C) Soukos stated that he was motivated to transfer the
anti-IED technology to the U.S. because he supports American
actions in the war on terror. He was aware of the great toll
IEDs have had on U.S. forces and the danger they continue to
pose. Soukos displayed a degree of Islamophobia but did not
say whether this feeling influenced his pro-American stance.
He repeatedly emphasized that he was not asking for money but
just wanted to make sure the technology got into the right
hands. Through extended conversations, however, Soukos
revealed that he was more than a little interested in earning
a global reputation.

COMMENT
--------------

7. (C) Soukos promised a demonstration of the anti-IED
technology in which the parameters (ordnance type, placement,
and concealment) could be controlled by USG representatives.
He maintained that his anti-IED device was already a reality
but alluded to a future shipment (expected in May) that would
enable him to demonstrate it to full effect. While Soukos
has a good track record (28 years of business fuelled by his
inventions),and there is no reason to believe that Soukos
would lie about his technology, his refusal to provide
convincing facts about the fundamental principles behind his
anti-IED device undermine any efforts to bring the device to
the attention of responsible DoD authorities.
RIES