What's in a name? Drones and gorgons

When NATO forces recently mobilised to enforce a No-Fly Zone over Libya, the powers-that-be named the US arm of the mission 'Odyssey Dawn'. Some shook their heads at the name, observing that it sounded a bit like a late 70s album title or the name of a cruise ship.

Others were concerned the word Odyssey was ill-advised, for a short 'in-and-out' mission.

After all, Homer's Odyssey was a tale of the long and arduous series of perils faced by Odysseus and his men on their journey home after the Trojan War. A US military spokesman explained at the time that 'Odyssey Dawn' was essentially an unclassified code name with no intended symbolic meaning, given so that defence forces could communicate about the operation without giving too much away. Giving names to US military campaigns is largely a practical matter. Yet, an official list of do's and don'ts must be applied when considering an appropriate 'brand' for military operations.

There are strategic, political and diplomatic sensitivities to be observed. While the name should rally the troops and inspire the wider public to support the campaign, care is also taken in the 21st Century to avoid overwhelmingly aggressive or hubristic code names. The name should also refer to something dignified, for the sake of personnel who lose their lives, or in the event that the battle is lost. 'Odyssey Dawn' seemed to tick all those boxes. It also related to the general Mediterranean location of the mission and conferred a certain heroic status on the participants.

There seem to be fewer restrictions on the naming of military equipment or weaponry. Some traditions apply - such as naming helicopters after Native American warrior tribes like Apache and Blackhawk. But in this arena, it appears the more aggressive the name, the better. There are plentiful references to Greek mythology to be found here.

As Steve Thorne writes in his book The Language of War, it's no coincidence that weapons like the Titan, Poseidon, Hercules and Orion and are named after powerful mythical entities capable of great destruction. Thorne also argues that these names suggest a higher and much more powerful hand than the one that created the weapons is guiding them. In other words, the name attaches mythological (almost magical) power to a weapon, by association. As with 'Odyssey Dawn' indicating the beginning of a protracted battle, fraught with perils and monsters, it strikes me that those who name weapon systems don't always know how the relevant myth ends.

Take the technology being developed for the controversial unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) - or drones - for example. In 2010, an improved surveillance system was developed for the drones, which significantly enhanced the vehicles' ability to 'see' what was happening on the ground. Nine cameras arrayed around a sphere made it possible to capture a much wider area, in much greater detail, and to follow more than one activity or person simultaneously on the ground. This video capture system was called 'Gorgon Stare'. At the time, a military spokesman said that they had named the new system 'Gorgon Stare' after the Medusa, because 'it could see everything'. That struck me as odd.