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.

Comments

The last thing the world needs is more landmines

[Tim C]

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'd be great

[Junior J. Junior III]

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...

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Saeger]

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"

Re:Sunset Clause

[BrookHarty]

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.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[geobeck]

I hope you're right. But I'm always wary of claims that new weapons will reduce human misery.

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.

Re:Detection

[cagle_.25]

Think of landmines as the modern version of a 3' fence a la Gettysburg. The field doesn't keep the enemy out or surprise him and blow him up; its purpose is to slow his advance to a crawl while he tries to clear the mines or avoid them.

And while he does that, your artillery and tanks blow him up.

Re:who supports land mines ?

[jmv]

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.

Re:Hoppers!

[bunions]

And every single injury is a tragedy. That still doesn't change the fact that in times of war, land mines allow the use of smaller infantry forces and result in lower casualties for the side deploying them.

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.