Slashdot Mirror
US Army to Test Laser Based Mine Clearing Device
QueueEhGuy writes "Yahoo News is running a Reuters story indicating that the United States will soon be testing a laser which "will either explode or evaporate the explosives in the device which can be up to 250 yards away.." It's about time, I was starting to think that we'd never blow stuff up with light." New Scientist has another story, complete with nifty graphic. The Zeus homepage has a few pictures and specs.
I'ts really too bad that this unit isn't for de-mining during peacetime. There are many countries that are covered with mines from past wars (just think of some eastern European countries and African countries). Too many civilians die each year from old mines. Oh well, this is good news non the less as it will help save lives.
...interesting if true.
but not as cool as if it took out buried mines as well. Seems as if the best use of this thing would be cleaning up the more 'obvious' stuff lying about. Unexploded bombs, etc. Not much for getting mines.
Of course the real problem w/mines all over the world is a social one as opposed to a technical problem. Too many little wars for territorial control being waged by people w/little regard for the welfare of others.
There's profit in it though so I don't expect it to change.
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
How are they going to power the thing?
Just use a souped up alternator and the engine make a good generator.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
but there are only 2 places where the US uses land mines, Cuba and Korea.
In korea these land mines are in a strip of land separating North and south korea. These mines help protect our soldiers. And no one lives in the DMZ so its not dangerous to civilians. While 30,000 soldiers may sound like a lot, remeber that the korean war was basically a draw because how many koreas/chines got killed they were able to send more.
So before we go signing any treaties lets be clear what we are risking.
Veramocor
how about we actually build something that gets rid of land mines?
And how about we actually stop building mines? Not exactly a chicken and egg problem, is it?
geek page at KY speaks
don't harm anyone unless a 12-year old digs up an unexploded mines
Oops, typo, hit submit too early it seems. That sentence should have been "don't harm anyone unless a 12-year old digs up an unexploded mine, eats the electronics, and gets lead poisoning". I was trying to make a weak joke. The point should be that the land mines aren't a risk to 12-year-olds digging them up unless the battery leaks or something.
I guess this is something i shouldn't be making jokes about anyway. Sorry.
Without looking on the internet...
e mi ne_toc.html
Of the 80 million mines, I'll guestimate that the US placed em in...
Korea (Still in use on the DMZ)
Vietnam (Many of the "mines" are prbly unexploded munitions)
Honduras
At the most, 2-4 million
http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/rpt_9809_d
Angola - That'd be South Africa and Cuba along with Rebels
Eritrea - Somalia
Mozambique - Rebels and the government
Namibia - South Africa and Marxist rebels
Somalia - Somalia during the civil war with Eritrea
Sudan - Civil War, border with Egypt
Afghanistan - Soviets
Cambodia - US, Vietnam, China, Cambodia, rebels
Bosnia - Serbia and the Civil War
Croatia - Serbia, Yugoslavia, Croatia
Nicaragua - The US and the local government
Iraq - Iraq, the Kurds, Iran.
So out of the 53 million estimated, the US might be responsable for a piece of the Cambodia and Afghan problem. The US wasn't big into dumb mines other than Claymore after the Korean War ended, except in Korea due to the problems with fratricide and killing civillians.
With Lasers on their heads!
(incidentally, a "White Elepehant" is an expensive, useless project.)
Why detonate a land mine with another explosive when you can use a laser! Lasers work nearly as well, and are merely many hundreds of times more expensive!
From the article: the operator will then switch on the main beam which will either explode or evaporate the explosives
Quick physics lesson. The explosive force of a conventional explosive is provided by the change-of-state to a gas. Air has a density of roughly 1 kg/cubic m. Most solids and liquids have a density of 1g/cubic cm, or 1000 kg/cubic m. So, when you vaporise something, you get a lump of gas which is compressed roughly 1000-fold.
The upshot? Vaporising the explosive = setting the explosive off! There is no way prevent landmines from detonating by vaporising them; they won't turn into harmless little poofs, they'll fucking explode. Unless they propose that this laser vaporises the landmine slowly/gently - which is patently absurd. So, you might as well set them off with a grenade.
Somebody with friends in the defense establishment has developed yet another practical (which does not mean useful or advisable, and certainly doesn't mean cost-effective) laser system, and they're trying to find some excuse to sell it.
This thing looks like the Crusader look like a good use of taxpayer money.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
I tried not to turn this into a gun control thread, honest. But you've forced my hand.
Let's start with the words-on-paper about guns in Washington, DC, New York City, NY, and Los Angeles, CA. These cities had a problem with their citizens - they liked to shoot guns at one another. (Well, usually only one side was shooting, and nobody was shooting back.) So we put words on paper that say "You can't have guns, and especially not in these cities".
Words on pieces of paper about land mines will probably be every bit as effective at convincing the leaders of Angola, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Mozambique, Bosnia, and Iraq to stop killing people with land mines.
Perhaps you're right - and shortly after their success in convincing great humanitarians like Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein to stop using land mines, the UN passes a resolution that says people blowing themselves up at bus stops and discotheques is Not A Nice Thing Either. Yasser Arafat and the rest of his organization will all stand around a campfire singing "Kumbayah" as doves fly out of their asses.
But I'm not gonna hold my breath.
Words on pieces of paper about land mines will probably be every bit as effective at convincing the leaders of Angola, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Mozambique, Bosnia, and Iraq to stop killing people with land mines.
So we should accept that the lowest most ruthless countries totally determine how we will fight wars? Iraq used poison gas, so the US should use poison gas too? Serbia took people in large groups and shot them down. Should we should do that too?
If a country cannot set limits on acceptable behavior, they are not a strong country. I don't see anyone in your above list as a world power.
This is the part that really pisses me off about the US government, and G Bush in particular, they believe in rules, except we applies to themselves, they always are looking for exceptions for then.
Unfortunately, many minefields continue to "deny territory" to the people who live there decades after the conflict has ended. The territory is often denied by killing or maiming their curious kids.
Not to worry, though. The mines weren't -- repeat weren't -- intended to hurt anybody.
Stop trolling and look at the facts.
Fact: The vast majority of people hurt by landmines are non-combatants.
In most cases, these innocent civilians are maimed or killed long after the fighting has stopped.
Fact: Landmines are the only battlefield munition that is incapable of distinguishing between friend, foe and/or innocents.
Landmines don't care who they kill. And, once they've been planted, all control over who the mines target is left to chance.
Fact: The majority of landmines are not safely removed after their ostensible purpose has been achieved.
Only rarely does the combatant responsible for laying the mines remove them - in most cases that's one buck that's passed onto someone else. And in all cases, the cost of safely removing a mine far outstrips the cost of laying it.
Fact: The US is the only western power that refuses to rule out the future use of anti-personnel landmines and, because of this US stance many third-world nations also refuse to stop using these munitions.
It's widely accepted that the pro-landmine position of the US is hampering worldwide efforts to curb the sale and use of anti-personnel landmines. Basically, lots of countries take the position that "if the US, that bastion of human rights, won't give them up then why should we?"
And, honestly, if your own government won't make that kind of commitment, the kind of commitment that every other NATO member has willingly made, then why should you expect others to do so?
Ask yourself this: How much would the combat effectiveness of the US military, the world's most powerful, most technologically advanced, fighting force be diminished if it didn't use anti-personnel landmines? I think you know the answer
It's all very well for you to say that words often don't mean a thing - thanks for pointing out the obvious - but your clear implication is that the American position on landmines is right. Well, frankly, you couldn't be further from the truth.
Sometimes, to achieve the results you want you have to lead by example. The US could join the majority of the free world and stop using these indiscriminate killing machines. It chooses not to. And as a result, directly and indirectly, thousands of people worldwide suffer, and will continue to suffer for the foreseeable future. Way to go USA.
I find it laughable that you even attempt to raise the issue of gun control here. Well, that's a big can of worms but I doubt that even the most liberal individual would equate the right to bear arms with the right to leave killing devices randomly scattered around.
Lastly, I think it's wrong of you to suggest that blowing up innocent people in bus stops and discotheques is wrong (which of course it is) while neglecting to mention that blowing them up from the comfort of your M1 tank, Apache helicopter or F-16 fighter (as has happened recently in both Palestine and Afghanistan, courtesy of Israel and the US*) is equally morally reprehensible. There are always two sides to every story and the side with the Stars and Stripes on their banner isn't always right.
(Moderators, before you mod this down as a troll, re-read what I've written. It's on-topic honest, accurate and far more balanced than the parent comment.)
(*These aren't isolated incidents, these are just examples. It's always nice to know that your taxes help to kill innocent men, women and children. It's even nicer to know that when it happens, nobody is ever held accountable.)
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg