Slashdot Mirror
Networked Landmines Work Together
crazedpilot writes "New landmines will soon communicate via a radio network, and move from place to place in order to be most effective." Termed the "self-healing minefield", the individual mines are capable of detecting an enemy breach and then moving to seal the gap.
Mines that move? That is goddamn frightening.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I'd be much more impressed if, rather than moving to seal a breach, they were capable of recognising the difference between enemy combatants and civilians who have wandered into the field (usually long after the war has finished).
It's official. Most of you are morons.
if we could spend billions of dollars perfecting self-healing civilians. Maybe splice some lizard genes into them so they can regenerate their lost limbs...
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
"On the morning of July 8, 2005, fourteen-year-old Duong Ba Tien left to go work in the peanut fields of Vietnam. He never came back. Hours later, his mother found him, his life snuffed out by a Vietnam War era explosive he encountered while digging in the ground."
Read more about how land mines suck. Do you know why landmines are popular? It's more demoralizing for an army to have to leave wounded soldiers behind (or carry maimed soldiers, which puts them at a tactical disadvantage) as compared to a clean kill.
There is such a thing as in imoral technology. That this was posted to Slashdot is disgusting.
If you're going to report on anything, ScuttleMonkey, try posting about technology that saves lives.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Since when to landmines heal anything?
An adaptive minefield would be a better term for it. They only "advance" this land mine possesses is the unique ability to be turned against friendly forces by a technologically advanced enemy. How would you like the land mines you planted hopping toward you in the middle of a fire fight?
As a former artilleryman, I can tell you that this would be close to useless. We were taught to clear minefields with artillery barrage - that is, when the first soldier encounters a mine, they all draw back and call in artillery. An artillery barrage will detonate all of the mines, regardless of whether they want to be detonated or not.
I never did like the concept of mines in the first place. They are the only munition in which a human is not involved in the targetting decision. Think about that - they'll kill anyone, or anything, indiscriminantly. U.S. mines will kill:
Land mines are the only munition which stand a substantial liability of killing non-combatants. The aren't a humane weapon no matter how you think about it.
And this so-called advance really isn't an advance. Typically, when encountering a minefield, the infantry will call in artillery, which will detonate all the mines on the battlefield at once.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
...why not just tell them where the enemy is and listen for the bangs?
rj
It's not about the money, it's about the time. Hoverboards and cancer cures are a long ways away (mostly waiting on other scientific breakthroughs like nanotech). We already have technology for mines and wireless networks, though. (Common sense, really)
Wonder what the public key field is for?
Call me old fashioned, but aren't we having enough problems in the world with standard mines that don't move, to be thinking about making more deadly landmines?
Get your own free personal location tracker
I hope you're right. But I'm always wary of claims that new weapons will reduce human misery.
Look at non-lethal policing weapons. They haven't replaced lethal force, they've just allowed the police to weaponize conflicts they previously wouldn't have had weapons for: they can shoot first against a civilian demonstration if they aren't using bullets. I'm sure the people working on those projects imagined their technology replacing firearms. I'd be wary of working on any weapons project, no matter how rosy a picture the client painted for me.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
"anti-US sentiment in the world."
Especially from our competitors in the arms business, including sweet neutral Sweden and Switzerland, culturally superior France, etc.
I bow my head in shame.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I think the issue with landmines is that they're left behind long after the conflict has ended. Anyone can step on these things after the fact.
Of course you can tell the mine the war is over, but will it really want to self-destruct?
What happens when the mine "chooses" not be inactivated?
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
self-deactivating timers in a few months, with explosives that decay in a few years, and casings that bio-degrade in a few decades would be better. (for the winners)
Nah, costs too much.
"I'll take 100,000 dumb-mines for my $10mil, instead of only 50,000 'treehugger' mines"
Power to the Peaceful
We already have ~way~ too many landmines, and way too many innocents being killed or disabled by them.
But its not American Innocents. Until a problem hits home, we tend to not care. What greenhouse gases? What oil shortage? Terrorism?
ROI today, not tomorrow, is the American Motto.
Yes. I also concede that tanks, machine guns, mandatory military service for all South Korean men, nuclear bombs, Delta Force, Chuck Norris, and the prayers of innocent children have helped to keep North Korea from invading South Korea. That's the 'dichotomy' part of 'false dichotomy'. You can actually have no mines as well as not being invaded.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
Of course, mines alone wouldn't have kept the North Koreans out. It's possible that without mines they would still not have overrun South Korea. That's not the point. The point is that sometimes bad things are necessary to prevent even worse things.
I'm sure that the vast majority of humanity would prefer that the world wasn't a place where bombs, guns and land mines are necessary. But getting rid of them will only empower despots to commit far greater evils. It's naive to think otherwise. It's a tragedy whenever someone is injured or killed by a no longer needed munition, but those munitions have helped to protect an even greater number of people from harm.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Case in point: A century ago, there were those who thought the airplane would make war obsolete because neither side would be able to plan attacks without the other side knowing. Then someone put a gun on a defensive plane to shoot down the reconnaisance planes. Then someone else put a gun on an offensive plane to shoot down the defensive planes. Then someone else said "To hell with reconnaisance; let's drop bombs on the enemy." ...and so on.
This strategy, while it means well, will probably lead to the development of anti-personnel land mines that attack approaching soldiers by homing in on the magnetic signature of their weapons... or the farm implement some poor soul is toting across the field after the war.
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
These are anti-tank mines, not anti-personnel mines.
The U.S., although not a signatory to the formal ban, doesn't use AP mines in combat (with the exception of on the Korean peninsula). Anti-tank mines and command-detonated anti-personnel devices (aka Claymores) are still allowed, provided that the AT mines are not equipped with anti-handling devices.
AT mines still serve a distinct purpose in warfare, and they're not likely to be dropped from the world's arsenals anytime soon.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
And while he does that, your artillery and tanks blow him up.
Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
Yes, they have utility, but giving them up does not mean that North Korea can just roll into Seoul. We can make up for their functionality in other ways.
I'm not in the military. The people who are say that they're necessary. I'm not going to be on the front lines anywhere and a minefield means that fewer of us have to be there.
In a similar vein, we don't stock biological weapons, and yet somehow dictatorships haven't taken over the globe yet.
Actually, we DO have stocks of biological and chemical weapons.
Sure, they're "defensive" but let's be honest. Anthrax is anthrax.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
"Landmines are awful, but letting genocidal dictators rule the world is worse."
Land mines are a genocidal dictators' best friend. They offer very little value to anyone trying to remove genocidal dictators.
When science gives us a self-deacivating minefield, or one that can distinguish a combatant from a civillian from a cow, then we'll have real progress.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
I have an idea for a landmine feature. How about the ability to remotely turn them off when a conflict is over so we don't have to deal with this?
Or just not make the cursed things to start with?
The NSA contends that nationwide wiretaps are necessary. That doesn't make it so.
That's an immensely selfish position, given the long-term civillian damage landmines have caused. I've been to towns in Cambodia where close to half of the inhabitants were missing limbs from old landmines. I'm given to understand that similar conditions exist in parts of Africa.
The anthrax research is for a vaccine. In order to make a vaccine, you have to make some anthrax. To say the US 'stockpiles bioweapons' in an abuse of both words.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
I'm not aware of any other part of the world where the US uses landmines (care to enlighten me?)
How about Unexploded cluster bombs? It's not because they don't call it a landmine that it isn't one.
You'll also notice that China, Vietnam, India, a whole bunch of Muslim Countries (Iran, Pakistan, etc.) are on your list...
How odd, exactly the countries the US likes to criticize (rightly) for not caring about human rights.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
We can make up for their functionality in other ways.
What other ways would that be? Would it be as efficient in price, manpower, effectivness?
Mines can be used to force troops into corridors or take huge losses by pushing through, or delays as they use field expedient demining, allowing defensive forces to position themselves for maximum effect.
They're cheap and don't need to be monitored much. Any if you're irresponsable.
I don't read AC A human right
Is this supposed to be the argument that convinces me that it's ok for anyone to deploy landmines? Because they're useful tools in the time of war? If it's not, please point me at it, because I don't see it. You know what else is a useful tool in the time of war? Killing POWs. I mean, hell, more troops are freed up to fight, so we should have fewer casualties, right? But we don't, because it's fucking BARBARIC. Just like landmines.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
This was done under the 'dual-use' provision of the up-and-coming ban that the U.S. signed.
I've never read or heard anything that suggest the U.S. is stockpiling offensive biologicals, but they don't really need to. It's a fairly trivial step for the U.S. (and most countries) to pump out biological agents once the hardware and knowledge is there.
The only significant change after Nixon cancelled the program was that the existing stockpiles were destroyed. But don't think that the U.S. doesn't have contigency plans that involve manufacturing & deploying offensive biological weapons in a very short timeframe. They've already done all the research & testing under the banner of defense.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
it's widely known and accepted that the US acts as the world's police force.
... whether the world likes it or not.
Russians have a similar system which attaches to most of their tanks and BMPs.
The problem with these is that they are slow and hideously expensive to run (fuel, maintenance, etc) and works reasonably well only against antipersonnel mines. Even in that case it requires repairs and overhaul after it has detonated a few tens of that. If the mines are of the antitank variety it lasts even less before overhauls. In addition to that some of the antitank mines are now equipped with delayed fuses which detonate later or detonate after n senses (same as the German antiship mines of WW2). It is enough to sprinkle 1 or 2 of these per every few 1000 antipersonnel ones and you can no longer use equipment like this.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
And very simple to hack and destroy, too, so no government will ever implement such a thing. As sad as it is, those mines are going to be around for a very long time, too, when planted, and they too will make so incredibly many innocent victims.
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
- We sell weapons, but the French sell weapons too... ...
- We use landmines, but the Poles do it too...
- We shoot civilians, but the Israelis do it too...
- We start illegal wars, but the British were there too...
- We trample civil rights, but would you rather live in China?
- We torture prisoners, but Saddam was worse...
-
See a pattern?
If your stated policy is to never let anyone be more evil than you on any single issue, you've basically decided to become the evilest of the pack.
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.