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.
These fucking mines HOP.
I swear I use the same things in Half-Life 2.
from the site though, the best part has to be:
Technical Support for your hopping mines!
I really want to know what happens when they run out of power though?
Are they inert or do they revert to a dangerous stepper?
The inert option would seem the best since they can be tended to for the duration of the war then afterwards no children will lose their legs or anything.
liqbase
Wouldn't a landmine that transmits a signal be relatively easy to detect? Just look for the signal and disable the mine. On the plus side, maybe these would make it easier to clean them up when the particular war that used them was over. There are many countries that are potted with landmines from wars that ended years ago. Taking a stroll in the country in these places is extremely dangerous.
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
Couldn't one just use a WiFi detector to locate these things?
If they can communicate, someone else can talk to them... does this mean that the army with the best computer-nerds will be able to turn mine-fields on their owners?
We already have ~way~ too many landmines, and way too many innocents being killed or disabled by them.
IF you're going to design a high-tech landmine, for heavens sakes, design in a renewable sunset clause so that if the landmine doesn't hear from you in 30 days it disables itself. If you need to reenable it, fine, but disabled should be the default.
Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
They do reduce civilian casualties.
But first can I say: holy crap! I was one of the main software engineers on this project (heck I still have the source code on my laptop) but that was like 5 years ago. NOW we get slashdotted?
In any case, the story we got was: normally, anti-tank mines are surrounded by anti-personnel mines. Anti-tank mines have magnetic triggers and are (relatively) safe for people: they are vulnerable to simply being picked up and moved out of the way. So the anti-tank mines are surrounded by APLMs to prevent the enemy from trivially disabling the field.
APLMs are the nasty ones that kill kids decades later. So in an effort to reduce the number of APLMs deployed DARPA tried this crazy idea of making self-healing anti-tank mines. in other words, since the anti-tank mines can protect themselves by moving, the anti-personnel mines are no longer necessary. And the world gets a little better.
This was a heck of a project to work on. I got to FIRE ROCKETS! Under software control! Super cool.
How about when a hacker starts sending bad "mine blown" messages to the grid, making the mines reconfigure? Maybe they keep detonating off each other, maybe they start all hopping (with some nice navigational hacking) back towards the ones who deployed them?
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
This started with the Sandia spherical hopper. "A pre-programmed microprocessor inside the hopper reads an internal compass, and a gimbal mechanism rotates the offset-weighted internal workings so that the hopper rolls around until it is pointed in the desired direction. The combustion chamber fires, the piston punches the ground, and the hopper leaps." That was back in 1997. Now, it looks like it is approaching production.
America's army of killer robots is coming. Soon.
People bring this up to explain the US refusing to sign the treaty but it's not really a valid point. The US could, if it wanted to, do numerous things:
1)Stop selling mines to other countries(!!!)
2)Stop using mines unilaterally, except at the DMZ in Korea
3)Negotiate a waiver for the DMZ field
The first and second options are no-brainers, the fact that the US has not done either of these and is in fact developing these new mines is utterly disgusting. We stand with the scum of the earth when we stand up for the use of mines.
The last option would involve some kind of quid pro quo where the US kicks in some significant capital for mine removal, but we have no money spending billions per week in Iraq and mine removal will save a LOT of people from dying or spending their lives horrifically disfigured. Of course this will never happen since the warmongers at DOD resist all restrictions on what toys they get to play with, from mines to nuclear bunker-busters to White Phosporous to Napalm... is it any wonder the world thinks so poorly of us?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Ah. So either these things can be remotely disabled/detonated and are therefore enemy hackable and effectively useless for their intended purpose OR they cannot be remotely disabled and they are therefore that much more effective at killing civilians. Or, my favorite, they can be remotely disabled AND the field commanders never bother to do this, which makes this an ineffective weapon against enemies AND a terribly effective weapon against civilians!
Seems like the perfect weapon for our Global War on Terrorism[tm]!
Also, even if they cannot be remotely disabled, the enemy can just catapult some dead cows (a la Monty Python) into the field and blow up a bunch of mines, and then listen for the RF chatter to locate the rest of the mines. Excellent idea. I wonder why nobody thought of that before.
> There is such a thing as in immoral technology. That this was posted to Slashdot is disgusting.
/. is acting as a news service here. It's not as if they appended praises to their report.
>
> If you're going to report on anything, ScuttleMonkey, try posting about technology that saves lives.
I wasn't aware that news only involved the prettier uses of technology. Here I sat in my naïveté, thinking we ought to hear about both good and bad things.
Sarcasm aside,
To address the first quoted claim, I disagree that this is an immoral use of technology. In a war, the two essential objectives are to preserve your resources (such as soldiers lives) and to neutralize the enemy, with preference going towards the latter. As such, any technology that aids in either of these objectives is moral, or at least amoral (I tend to think of war -- it's execution, not necessarily its objectives or motivations -- amorally, but that you can assign value judgments based on various objectives allows us to speak in moral terms if we like).
Is this use of technology disgusting? I think so. So are assault rifles and hand grenades, in my opinion. But this does not make them immoral in the context in which they are meant to be used.
Care to put it on sourceforge?
Here's the pretty obvious answer as to why America doesn't care about landmines:= mines%20UN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRF7dTafPu0&search
Because it only happens to worthless swarthy foriegn kids, and not your precious, precious babies.
Some questions for the AC who developed these landmines and is convinced they will reduce civilian casualties. One, how can you be so certain that the U.S. or somebody else won't extend this technology for anti-personnel landmines? In the configuration you describe, an enemy who was somehow able to bypass the (conventional) anti-personnel mines (e.g., via old-fashioned mine-clearing techniques) could get to the (adaptive) anti-tank mines, clear a few, then just hang out and keep grabbing the anti-tank mines as they hop in to replace the cleared ones -- in fact, seems like that would be *easier* than clearing an old-fashioned minefield, because the anti-tank mines are going to identify themselves by hopping around. Sooner or later, somebody in the military is going to argue that you can create an even more secure minefield by making both kinds of mines adaptive, don't you think? If the anti-personnel landmines are necessary to protect the anti-tank mines, then it seems, from a purely strategic standpoint, that you could create an even more secure minefield by applying this technology to both the core anti-tank mines and the surrounding anti-personnel mines.
Question two, how human-safe are anti-tank mines really in the long run? If an anti-tank mine is forgotten and left in place for years or even decades, what are the chances that someday it will either (a) decompose enough to become unstable and therefore dangerous, or (b) end up in an area where large metal objects (tractors, cars, construction equipment, etc.) are likely to appear?
I asked the same question; can't you just keep grabbing one at a time, wait for them to hop in, and clear it for you?
The answer was: the minefield is not designed to kill people, its purpose is to be an obstacle. The threat of deadly force, unfortunately, is required for it to be an effective obstacle. If you want to spend the next 6 hours fucking around with the minefield as if it's a toy while there's a war going on around you, you're not going to live long. A ranger who cleared mines for a living stopped by our demo site during one of our live-rocket demos and said, "If I saw this in the field I'd tell the unit to just mark it on the map and go around." Which is its purpose.
I'm not surprised, but still dismayed, at the "dude you're a monster!" venom that was unleashed at my original post. That's too bad. Was I uncomfortable with the project? Yes, a bit, and that was part of the reason I left the company. But I find it amusing that everyone on here claims to have such a clear-cut moral compass. "Don't work on anything that could possibly have a bad use" covers an awful lot of ground. Our SHM prototype used Linux; have you ever contributed to the kernel, and if so does that make you an accessory too? Why do you write open source software when some of it can, conceivably, be used for doing evil?
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.
.45. But the police have way more nonlethal toys than that, and if you've decided that these standard options are just not for you, you'll still be able to find something that fits your style- perhaps tear gas grenades, or pepper spray, or even something as simple as the lowly police baton.
Which is completely unfair if the civilians aren't going to be armed with the same range of devices that are available to police. So the public needs to start arming itself with these weapons immediately. This means all of you- open another tab right now and start buying some non-lethal weaponry for the next time you run into the police in a crowded public setting. Tasers are sold to nervous women all over the Internet, and you can buy "X-Ring" rubber bullets in a variety of calibers up to
The non-lethal weapon I want is the capture net that is fired from a 37 mm launcher, with weights at the corners that spiral around the guy. I'd use that one at meetings for when someone comes up with a really bad idea- the kind of bad idea that needs to be stopped now before too many PHB-types hear it. I'd stand up, say "stop right there" and fire the net around the person, immobilizing him before his bad idea got any traction. I really think that would help me make my point.
If everyone in the meeting were afraid that anyone there might be armed with one of these things, it could really cut down on bad ideas.
Well, in truth, it started with pilots throwing objects at each other, then progressing to pistols. Mounted guns were latter. Good point though.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
I dunno... do IEDs count?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
If IEDs weren't ALREADY illegal, anyone that suggested the US signing a treaty making them so would no doubt win near unanimous approval almost overnight. I think that more proves my point than undermines it.
>"anti-US sentiment in the world."
>Especially from our competitors in the arms business, including sweet neutral Sweden and Switzerland
As for Sweden: when we, Hungary decided to buy the swedish made "JAS-39 Gripen", which is a tiny, economy jetfighter, America got really angry. "Not buying our surplus F-16 or F-18? Let's see if you can get US entry visa requirement abolished for hungarian citizens in the next 25 years to come" and various threats they made. (Yankee can come here without visa).
Of course we did not buy either US plane because we have no intention to bomb the palestinians or invade Iran. We needed a plane for fighter interception and reconnaisance, that can be run on the cheap in the long term. We need no extensive offensive capability. That is the big problem with US arms: everybody knows you buy them because you want to wage a war. This is why countries buy french, swiss or swedish arms.
Except Hurricanes?
I'm sure the military bases in Mississippi and Louisiana were properly secured and evacuated, and after the storm they were quickly cleaned up and back in an operational state. Part of that planning probably included not putting any bases below sea level.
Cleaning up the rest of the world after storms isn't really in their mandate. I'm sure the military was also involved in all the testing that showed that the city would be turned into a toilet bowl after a major hurricane - Congress just decided not to fund any solutions to the problem.
And the military could have helped out quite a bit more if they were permitted to treat the war-zone that followed just like any other war zone - with looters shot by snipers on sight. Ditto for those who fail to disperse on command when rescue personnel are being harassed. This is the stuff that the military is actually good at. It just doesn't fit in with the modern litigous society.
The solution to hurricanes is to not provide government funds of any kind for the rebuilding of costal or below-sea-level housing. The only relief that should be provided is the purchase of property for the conversion into parks, and the granting of relocation funding. Ditto for homes destroyed in recurring floods of any kind. If the rich want to build mansions on the shoreline, that is fine, but they shouldn't go looking for handouts when a storm comes along. The poor don't belong there at all - those who are already there should be allowed to stay, but when their homes are knocked down they should be granted relief funds to move out.