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

They did this on Deep Space Mine

[Anonymous Coward]

To prevent the Dominion from coming through the wormhole after they'd taken the station. Of course, those were also self-replicating mines, so we'll probably need to wait a bit for those.

Re:They did this on Deep Space Mine

[richdun]

Did you hear that? It sounded like a Runabout zooming over your head, "Dax"ster.

Had to.

Re:They did this on Deep Space Mine

[beoswulf]

I think he meant Deep Space Mine, since the show was a bomb.

I kid, seriously! Loved the story arcs.

Hoppers!

[LiquidCoooled]

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.

Re:Hoppers!

[Aquillion]

That's easy. When they get low on power and sense somebody walking nearby, they leap onto their face and inject a cache of minefield-embryos into their belly. Within about a day or so, the host explodes, scattering a brand new fully-charged minefield where the enemy least expects it!

Re:Hoppers!

[Lord Kano]

Monsters we are lest monsters we become.

Landmines are awful, but letting genocidal dictators rule the world is worse.

LK

Re:Hoppers!

[couchslug]

AT mines are not AP mines are not (usually) CBU bomblets. The intarweb is our friend, so there is no excuse for not knowing the fscking difference.
Intelligent minefields should be a breeze for postwar demining. Command the field to hop. Blow the visible mines and wait for the others to hop. Follow up with conventional demining.

Re:Hoppers!

[BoomerSooner]

Princess Di is rolling over in her grave. :(

WTF is wrong with the world?

Re:Hoppers!

[bunions]

you know what else suck? false dichotomies.

Re:Hoppers!

[Lord Kano]

Do you concede that the minefield that's at the DMZ has helped to keep North Korea from invading South Korea?

LK

Re:Hoppers!

[Chowderbags]

I'd say that it's far more likely that the threat of all out war with both South Korea and the US is a bigger deterrant. Well, that and North Korea not having enough of an infrastructure to support a fully mobilized wartime army for more than a few weeks.

Re:Hoppers!

[Lord Kano]

Do you concede that the minefield that's at the DMZ has helped to keep North Korea from invading South Korea?

LK

Re:Hoppers!

[bunions]

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.

Re:Hoppers!

[Lord Kano]

I'm not quite sure on the timeframe, but overall I agree with your point. With very few exceptions, there's no reason why a mine needs to be active and dangerous 20 years after it was placed.

LK

Re:Hoppers!

[plunge]

Only if you'll repeat it over and over like a cult mantra... about sixteen more times. That'll do it.

Re:Hoppers!

[Lord Kano]

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

Re:Hoppers!

[Ohreally_factor]

iHOP landmines?

Does the Rooty Tooty Fresh and Fruity landmine explode with deliciousness when you step on it?

Re:Hoppers!

[Lord Kano]

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

Re:Hoppers!

[hunterx11]

Landmines are awful, but letting genocidal dictators rule the world is worse.*

*Prices and participation may apply. Not valid for genocidal dictators whom the U.S. supports.

Re:Hoppers!

[djupedal]

If they can use those few weeks to move south and capture a department store or two, they will be able to replenish and repeat the effort. I've always said they would stop when the hit the first dept. store anyhow, since the pickings would be so juicy the entire force would go awol just so they could eat fresh mangos and sit in overstuffed recliners..

Re:Hoppers!

[peacefinder]

"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.

Re:Hoppers!

[bunions]

I'm not in the military. The people who are say that they're necessary

The NSA contends that nationwide wiretaps are necessary. That doesn't make it so.

I'm not going to be on the front lines anywhere and a minefield means that fewer of us have to be there.

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.

Actually, we DO have stocks of biological and chemical weapons.

Sure, they're "defensive" but let's be honest. Anthrax is anthrax.

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.

Re:Hoppers!

[c_forq]

I hate to do this because I pretty much agree with you but...

Go to Cambodia and tell people that, see how far you get.

That is a horrible argument. For example how ridiculous would countering a diversity argument with "Go to a KKK meeting and tell people that, see how far you get" sound?

Re:Hoppers!

[ksheff]

Di should have put her energy and money into research to create a better area denial weapon that would make land mines obsolete.

Re:Hoppers!

[Jeremi]

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.

I'll agree with you as far as weapons in general go. The question is, is the above statement true for land mines specifically? Or should we put land mines in the "too nasty to be allowed" category, along with nerve gas, anthrax, etc?

Most of the world thinks so, too bad the Bush administration doesn't. :^(

Re:Hoppers!

[Jeremi]

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.

Self-deactivating is probably doable. Cow-friendly land mines would only result in the deployment of militarized cows...

Re:Hoppers!

[Lord Kano]

The NSA contends that nationwide wiretaps are necessary. That doesn't make it so.

They may very well be "necessary", too bad for the NSA that they're not legal.

That's an immensely selfish position, given the long-term civillian damage landmines have caused.

Given a choice between the possibility of a civilian casualty and the eventiality of bullets being fired at me, the choice is simple. Regardless, I'm not going to war. The only wars that we're likely to enter during my useful lifetime as a soldier are going to be against countries that I have no personal beefs with; but that's an entirely different discussion.

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.

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.

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.

How many other diseases that can be treated with antibiotics are we developing vaccines for? While immunological work does go on, it's just as much a cover for hoarding anthrax spores. Do you believe, even for a minute, that if the US was in bad shape in a future war that we'd hesitate to use them? For the sake of argument; if we had a million Chinese troops about to invade the continental US, anthrax spores would be falling like snow.

LK

Re:Hoppers!

[Lord Kano]

Most of the world thinks so, too bad the Bush administration doesn't. :^(

The Bush adminstration and the Clinton administration before it. It's one decision that both of them got right.

LK

Re:Hoppers!

[bxbaser]

"they appear to be anti-tank mines. i don't think children can set them off"

Unless of course those children happen to be in a automobile.

Re:Hoppers!

[Firethorn]

Don't forget that american minefields are designed to turn themselves off after a period of time and are also only used in carefully mapped fields to be cleaned up when no longer needed. We have ones that can be shut down by transmissions, that do it automatically after 3 months to a year, etc...

They're not the steppers that can still be dangerous 10, 20 or even 50 years down the road, planted all over the place then forgotten.

There's reasons us Americans don't want to give up our mines.

Re:Hoppers!

[Firethorn]

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.

Re:Hoppers!

[Firethorn]

The NSA contends that nationwide wiretaps are necessary. That doesn't make it so.

And you're an expert able to tell this how? We're at war and have infiltrators domestically, international wiretaps and information gathering help to find an enemy that doesn't appear in public. Advanced data interpritation can help in this, and is part of what we're good at.

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.

And how many killings have you heard about with bladed weapons? There are areas with huge problems of people killing each other with blades.

My point is that the people that laid down land mines in those areas tend to be irresponsable with anything that can be a weapon, and landmines are not hard to make. A bit of explosive and a physical trigger/detonator. Something as simple as a primer, firing pin and spring pressed against an explosive. A shotgun shell can be made into a trap with minimal effort.

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.

Re:Hoppers!

[Simon Garlick]

The Cambodians are the victims of indiscriminate laying of landmines.

The KKK aren't the victims of racism.

Re:Hoppers!

[bunions]

"And you're an expert able to tell this how?"

Because the natural question that pops up when an organization proclaims something as necessary is "is it really necessary or does it just make your job easier?" Sorry, but I don't think anyone needs to simply blindly accept their statements as fact.

"My point is that the people that laid down land mines in those areas tend to be irresponsable with anything that can be a weapon"

You mean like the US Army? It's a reasonable assumption that at least half of the minefields in Cambodia were American.

Re:Hoppers!

[Lord Kano]

I don't have to convince you. The people who prosecute the wars are in agreement about them.

The Geneva Conventions mandate certain treatment for POWs. We don't kill them, not only because it's barbaric but because we agreed not to.

LK

Re:Hoppers!

[hunterx11]

You kind of messed up there and named two dictators whom the U.S. has supported: Stalin and Pol Pot. You also forgot Suharto and Hussein. Who are the "you guys" to whom you derisively refer, anyway? Opponents of state-sponsored terror? Is opposing state-sponsored terror somehow outdated in 2006? Please clue me in.

Re:Hoppers!

[CrankyFool]

Congratulations, we have real progress!

As of 1996, the US at least is using only self-destructing mines everywhere except for in some training situation and the Korean Peninsula. These new mines typically have a 4hr to 15 day lifespan.

For more information about our mine arsenal, check out

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/mines.htm

Re:Hoppers!

[wirefarm]

Jesus. Do you have to give these sick bastards new ideas?

Re:Hoppers!

[Lord Flipper]

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.

I worked on military stuff... manuals, theory of operations, and operations/troubleshooting stuff, and believe me, pal, you have no idea what you're talking about, as in: All the Way Misinformed.

Re:Hoppers!

[mi]

Most of the world thinks so, too bad the Bush administration doesn't. :^(

Bush's — and before it Clinton's — administrations are commanding the only real force capable of containing and occasionally even fighting evil. In addition to the lofty pronouncements, they also have to care about actual troops in the field, or, at least, listen to the generals who command them.

It sucks to have to kill people, but as long as the enemy wants to do and does do it to you and those you care about, you have to overcome your revulsion and be able to fight and kill it.

Back to the actual subject of the article, though, any such advancement in the weapons technology is, ultimately, a good thing. There'd be less of these things thrown around for one, and two, once the hostilities are over, dismantling the minefield (with the push of a button) will be rather easy...

And it is the deaths from the stale years-old minefields that drive that "whole world" to want to ban them altogether...

Re:Hoppers!

[TubeSteak]

Actually, we DO have stocks of biological and chemical weapons.
Sure, they're "defensive" but let's be honest. Anthrax is anthrax.

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.

Actually, it's fairly well known that the offensive biowarfare research program got rolled into the defensive program back in 1969 when Nixon cancelled 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.

Re:Hoppers!

[Fulcrum of Evil]

And you're an expert able to tell this how? We're at war and have infiltrators domestically, international wiretaps and information gathering help to find an enemy that doesn't appear in public. Advanced data interpritation can help in this, and is part of what we're good at.

We aren't at war. The last time we were was December 8, 1941. The problem with the domestic spying you seem to like is that it's illegal.

And how many killings have you heard about with bladed weapons? There are areas with huge problems of people killing each other with blades.

Yeah, like Northern VA. Difference is that machetes don't jump up and hack your fingers off all by themselves.

Re:Hoppers!

[bunions]

yes, thank you for stating the obvious. We agreed not to kill POWs because it's barbaric, just like pretty much everyone else in the civilized world agreed not to use landmines. And somehow the world hasn't been overrun by dictators, as your original post would seem to imply.

Re:Hoppers!

[Lord Kano]

Our motives weren't quite so altruistic. We agreed to the Geneva Convention because we wanted to recieve like consideration for our troops when they were captured.

No one wanted a repeat of the Bataan Death March.

It was easy for the rest of the "civilized world" to agree not to use them, because it's widely known and accepted that the US acts as the world's police force.

LK

Re:Hoppers!

[c_forq]

Alright, replace the KKK with the Nation of Islam then. The Nation of Islam was(is?) pro-segregation while there is no doubt the members were(are?) discriminated against and were(are?) victims of racism.

Re:Hoppers!

[hopethisnickisnottak]

Self-deactivating is probably doable

They exist. I've worked on the development of the warhead for a tactical anti-personnel landmine for the DRDO, India's DARPA. While I didn't work on the electronics or the fuse, I have sufficient knowledge of the whole system.

Landmines have a stable explosive in the warhead, usually TNT/RDX. Hopping mines like the Bouncing Betty have an extra charge of cordite. The way it functions is once the mine is triggered (by whichever means it is designed for), the trigger delivers an electric charge to the detonator, which is a slightly unstable explosive (easier to detonate than RDX/TNT). This detonates the detonator, which creates a detonation wave which then passes to the main explosive, causing it to detonate.

In case of the hopping mines, the trigger sets of the cordite, which makes the warhead hop up about a metre or so. The warhead is connected to the base with a small cord which, when taut, triggers the main warhead at the appropriate height.

The simplest way to restrict the operational timeframe of a landmine is to determine how long the battery inside the trigger retains its charge. Once the battery is devoid of charge, the landmine is safe for handling by a small child. Such landmines are already in use in most developed countries.

Apart from being able to restrict civilian deaths occuring from landmines being left behind after the war (Africa, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka etc.), it also enables field commanders to use landmines tactically. Additionally, they can be fired behind a retreating enemy using a small rocket-delivery mechanism to slow the enemy down. In such cases, it is critical that the landmines de-activate before your own troops reach the area.

Re:Hoppers!

[rsavela]

>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. Negative. The US has tons and tons of biological weapons. More than anyone else in the world. What we have is certainly quite dangerous.

Re:Hoppers!

[geminidomino]

it's widely known and accepted that the US acts as the world's police force.
... whether the world likes it or not.

Re:Hoppers!

[geminidomino]

You know, Europeans tend to be a bunch of arrogant asses re: Americans... but the flag-waving muppet you're arguing with almost lets me see where they're coming from.

The real price of Freedom of Speech: It's available to anyone, regardless of mental accuity. *sigh*

Re:Hoppers!

[NoTheory]

Just because these landmines can be easily disabled, doesn't mean that they will be disabled. Landmines kill and maim due to neglegence. What happens in a war zone when a military uses a mine field to cover their retreat, and then no longer have access to the area in which they planted the mines? (Somalia and Iraq are both good examples) Will they remain there forever? Deaths from landmines are not an issue of technological inability. It is an issue of will.

Land mines in principle are terrible ideas. They are indiscriminate warfare. Nuking Nagasaki was an atrocity. Firebombing Dresden and Tokyo were atrocities. Landmine use is the same sort of thing as those tactics. And even if you wanted to argue that the scale of death from landmine use is different, at this point, i'm willing to bet that all the injuries and deaths caused by landmines world wide is not a insignificant number.

And really, with a fast mobile army, what's the point in using landmines? As most of the conflicts that the US has to deal with now are asymmetrical, what good are landmines going to be?

Re:Hoppers!

[Bing Tsher E]

The NSA contends that nationwide wiretaps are necessary. That doesn't make it so.


You have that in writing? 'Nationwide wiretapes' is a ludicrious notion. There would be so much information flowing that anything of value would be lost in a flood of irrelevance. The NSA, if anything, contends that narrow focused wiretaps are necessary.

To say the US 'stockpiles bioweapons' in an abuse of both words.

However, the US has stockpiles of chemical weapons that are proving to be very expensive to deactiveate and dispose of. Belive me, I know, I live within five hours drive of some of the biggest stockpiles. They're struggling to dispose of it all.

Re:Hoppers!

[Anonumous Coward]

getting rid of [mines] will only empower despots to commit far greater evils

Blessed be thy name, oh Holy Simplification. Hero of Democracy Reagan gives mines to the good Taliban who are fighting the evil Soviet despots, so Hero of Democracy Bush must now plant Afghanistan full of mines in his fight against the evil Taliban despo^Wterrorists, is this what you mean? And the bad guys don't have mines, only the good guys do, right? And the good guys is always "us", the evil despots always "them", and "he who is not with us is against us", right? Do you also refuse to have French fries with your mines?

Re:Hoppers!

[Bing Tsher E]

it also enables field commanders to use landmines tactically.

Indeed. The 'More, Better Landmines' salespitch. How could we forget that?

I'm sure there are business concerns proud to be producing them as a humanitarian gesture.

Re:Hoppers!

[BMojo]

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.

How the hell can you claim to know what your government is doing?

Re:Hoppers!

[novus ordo]

Mines already can distinguish between the two. Combatants know better than go where they are deployed. Good luck telling that to your children.

Re:Hoppers!

[jfopie]

Try thinking this one through: the North Koreans know that they can't simply roll in to Seoul because not only is the South Korean and the US military there, but also the border is heavily mined and that needs to be cleared before they can move. They can clear that by sending in waves of tanks and people or use specialized troops and machinery. Knowing the North Koreans, they'll do the first rather than the last. More costly, but they don't really care about that when push comes to shove.

Now remove those mines, and you've just made it easier for the North Koreans to exercise the option. As a matter of fact, you've made it even attractive to do so: all those troops they'd have lost in clearing the mines are now available.

So you've just made life easier for the North Koreans. What do you purpose to replace the mines? Mines block terrain and make it costly for someone to enter it. What is your alternative?

There are only two alternatives: nukes or troops. Want to deny terrain? Occupy it or destroy it.

There is none. Or do you have one?

Instead of getting all hissy on land mines, get hissy on incompetent militaries and half-assed "revolutionaries" who don't know shit from shinola about how to use mines and stop the Europeans from selling land mines to anyone who pays cash. There's your problem, not the land mines in and of themselves.

And bio weapons are a straw man: nukes deter.

Re:Hoppers!

[Colin Smith]

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.

Yeah, and the Japanese hunt whales for research too. Wink wink.

Re:Hoppers!

[gutu]

Wrong, the most efficient way is not killing POWs or taking POWs in the first place. When you kill somebody it's one soldier less. When you capture somebody you need to reserve resources for holding him. When you wound somebody you tie at least two soldiers immediatelly (for carrying him safe) and later as increased enemy economical burden of taking care of him.

Re:Hoppers!

[chriso11]

And land mines stopped them, huh?

And you also neatly avoided responding to the statemenet that numerous dictators that the US supported have killed a large number of innocents. But collateral damage is collateral damage, huh?

Face it, land mines are not civilized - they are not weapons that Americans should be using, much less proud of using them.

Re:Hoppers!

[geminidomino]

Pointing out the FACT that guys like Stalin, Kim Il Sung, and Castro killed orders of magnitude more people than guys like the Shah, Park Chung Hee, and Pinochet makes me a "flag-waving muppet" with "low mental acuity"? Ummmmm... okay.

No, dumbass. Pointing out that those evil bastards the US supports are "not as bad" as your dossier of psycos, despite the fact that, as the post I responded to pointed out, the US was supporting some of THEM, and a general tone of "Teh US pwnz!!!!111 j00 r li3rZ" about any that criticize the US earned you the epithet.

Supporting less "successful" psychopaths doesn't excuse the action, much less make it any more honorable.

By the way, son, if you're going to use "big words" like "acuity", you should learn how to spell them. Perhaps a review of apostrophe usage would be in order as well.

I'm not your son. Even if I was, I'd be too embarassed to admit it. You're enough of an embarassment as a countryman, much less as someone whose genes I'd inhereted. I'll take a few fat-finger errors on slashdot compared to what you have to offer, any day and twice on sunday.

Re:Hoppers!

[im_thatoneguy]

In the case of North/South Korea, which I believe the parent was responding to I would reckon very few children are going to wander out into the mine fields. And seeing as that standoff is going to last for at least another 20 years, and the mines are limited to such a specific area. There is absolutely no reason to not mine it sky high.

Re:Hoppers!

[Fred_A]

If you've ever seen the four colour glossies for military weapons (the actual ones, meant to sell to the military of the world), they are often pitched as being designed for humanitarian reasons in one of the paragraphs.

Not much sillier than the outrageous stuff you see in the equivalent martetroid spew in the IT world actually.

Re:Hoppers!

[tsm_sf]

What do you call a society that invents self-healing minefields before self-healing limbs?

Insane.

Re:Hoppers!

[tsm_sf]

I thought it was the fact that N. Korea is primarily made up of starving dirt-farmers, while S. Korea is a wealthy and populous nation backed by the most powerful government on the planet.

Could be the mines tho. Or maybe this bananna I've got stuck in my ear.

Re:Hoppers!

[Instine]

"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."

Are you serious? How niave is this? Like the Nukes are defenisive? Some nation blows up a few ships, the US 'defends itself' by blowing up 2 cities. Yer sure you could call that defence. I'd call it an atrocity, but of course that debate could rage on forever. Which is my point.

What would a small group of people from any given country need to do, before the US was justified in unleashing such a bioagent on their population? You can argue that the US is making a vaccine for these agents, but will they make it freely available to the rest of the world? Does that lower the risk of Bush et al using what they have agressively some day? You can not argue that the US is not stockpiling bioagents, just because they 'might' use them for the greater good. They are still a risk. Don't be fooled by your own country's propoganda.

Re:Hoppers!

[Rob Kaper]

I really want to know what happens when they run out of power though?

Or when the communication protocols get hacked and these babies hop right back to surround your own headquarters..

Re:Hoppers!

[gbjbaanb]

perhaps so.. "these fairtrade landmines are created using traditional techniques by the tribesmen of some of the world's most dangerous places, who have little means of supporting themselves beyond growing small, red flowers. In purchasing these, you are not only acquiring a substantial tactical weapons system, but also helping to rebalance the trade deficit of the third world. We thank you for your humanitarian gesture to help eradicate poverty in this way."

I don't think it'd catch on.

Re:Hoppers!

[Silver Gryphon]

Now that's-a spicy meat-a-ball!

Re:Hoppers!

[hopethisnickisnottak]

Indeed. The 'More, Better Landmines' salespitch. How could we forget that? What the fuck are you talking about? By tactical use, I mean they can be used for a smaller timeframe. If a commander wants a certain area to be denied to the enemy for two days, but plans on using that same area for an attack on the third, he has that option if he uses these self-neutering mines. How does this have anything to do with any sort of salespitch? It is a requirement that is being satisfied.

I'm sure there are business concerns proud to be producing them as a humanitarian gesture.

No, there are business concerns proud about the fact that their products are helping prevent a fanatic Islamic country from attacking a liberal democracy! My country does not have the privilege of a huge body of water seperating it from unsavoury nations. In my country, terrorists don't fly commercial. They hike over mountains and through passes. I see nothing wrong with mining the passes and blowing the fuckers to their Jannat and their Allah!

Get some perspective before you run your mouth off.

Re:Hoppers!

[CRCulver]

Our motives weren't quite so altruistic. We agreed to the Geneva Convention because we wanted to recieve like consideration for our troops when they were captured. No one wanted a repeat of the Bataan Death March.

The Geneva Conventions dealing with treatment of POWs were signed fifteen years before the Bataan Death March.

Re:Hoppers!

[Bastard of Subhumani]

What do you call a society that invents self-healing minefields before self-healing limbs?

The winners?

Re:Hoppers!

[boarsai]

So what they built is a mine feild that's easy to clear? What I mean is... If I have the ability to explode one mine in a feild and the little blighters hop to where I just blew one up... I could do it again, wait for more to hop up... rinse... repeat... clear a wide path through a land mine feild without getting off my deck chair? The fact that the little blighters start hopping might just give away some of their positions also. Just curious... I've no idea what it would take to set "these" land mines off... heavy rock do the trick? If so will the latest fad in army accessories be a large stock pile of rocks????

Re:Hoppers!

[Kombat]

Do you concede that the minefield that's at the DMZ has helped to keep North Korea from invading South Korea?

Only if you'll concede that euthanizing every last HIV and AIDS victim would eradicate the diseases, or that executing anyone convicted of a felony would drastically reduce crime rates.

Just because a solution is effective doesn't mean its ethical or justified.

Re:Hoppers!

[Madcowz]

What do you call a cow with a machine gun?

A military Coup! :-)

/Mad

Re:Hoppers!

[Firethorn]

Actually, the US will continue to use persistant mines until 2010
Yeah, for the korean border. That's not going away any time soon.

And the link in your sig has a serious collection of strawman arguments

Really, strawman how? Firearms are one of the best methods to deter attackers. Most of the time you don't even have to pull the trigger.

As for arguing 'you're more likely to be shot with your own gun', that study was seriously flawed in that it counted many cases where the guns were illegal, where the perpetrator came with his own weapon, yet it was still included in the stats, suicides were included, etc... I've had training, I believe in gunproofing children(yes, I have a safe). This means you teach them gun safety early on.

Re:Hoppers!

[hyperpixel]

It's also a known fact that the County Sheriff polices the County...

Whether the crooks, druggies, murderers or rapists like it or not!

Re:Hoppers!

[MrNaz]

Dude, I mean, like, really... Help me out here because I'm struggling...

Do you really believe that Bush / Clinton are fighting "evil"? Do you really believe that there are people out there who are "evil"? What kind of fairy land are you living in? Do you think the world is something out of Lord of the Rings? I mean seriously, dude, we're not fighting dark legions of hell-spawned, fire-breathing, brain-eating zombies. They're humans, who eat, sleep and crap just the same as you do. No, seriously, they don't eat brains.

"Evil" from your standpoint is "courage" from theirs. Ever heard the phrase "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"? As far as the public is concerned, the "good guys" are whoever you get told they are. Do you really, honestly, think CNN will say "Hey, we're stealing their land, money and resources, but meh, we've got bigger guns right now so fuck 'em". No, they word it in terms like "liberating the country's resources", "protecting the world from terrorism" and "allowing market forces to decide how wealth is distributed". You're kidding yourself if you really believe that the world had anything to fear from the half-starved badly equipped Iraqi army, or Saddam's rusty, decomposed chemical weapons that were about as dangerous as a bottle of Drain-O. And never mind that some societies like Chile don't want market forces, they actively choose socialist structures. But hey, according to guys like Kissinger, they are only allowed to elect governments that suit the agendas of US corporations.

Back to my point, consider the following people, who were considered "evil" or "terrorists" by authorities at some point in their lives:

* Nelson Mandela
* Marin Luther King
* George Washington

The list goes on. Remember this next time you see the label "terrorist" being applied to someone. Remember that anyone you put the label "terrorist" on, you put them in company with the people above. Ask yourself, "Are they really a terrorist, or do they just want to be able to drink water without having to pay Bechtel?". Also remember, America's founding fathers were all terrorists, according to Great Britain. I wonder who in today's world will be considered terrorists in 100 years.

Re:Hoppers!

[matfud]

But anti-tank mines can be detonated by things that are not tanks such as busses and lorries and even cars if
the mines become unstable (as most explosives do) due to age.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/BKK168565 .htm

Re:Hoppers!

[blackpaw]

It was easy for the rest of the "civilized world" to agree not to use them, because it's widely known and accepted that the US acts as the world's police force.

Good grief - only in USA Fanatasy land. Its rather more widely known and accepted that world wishes the USA would just fuck off.

Re:Hoppers!

[Just Another Poster]

Some nation blows up a few ships

And conquers a few other nations. And acts like sub-human savages in those nations.

Re:Hoppers!

[hunterx11]

Hint: "ally of convenience" and "support" are two entirely different things.

Even with Pol Pot? Supporting one genocidal dictator against another is one thing, I'll grant you that. But supporting the return of a genocidal dictator to power is inexcusable

Enjoy your screech, though.

Sorry, only Newfies drink Screech.

Re:Hoppers!

[Aaron England]

Premise 1: Landmines are effective.
Premise 2: Killing POWs are effective.
Premise 3: Killing POWs is barbaric.
Conclusion: Landmines are barbaric.

Is that argument supposed to convince me that landmines are barbaric? Because it's not really an argument when your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises but from an empty assertion. Unless you expected me to take the following argument seriously.

Premise 1: Giraffes are tall.
Premise 2: Bronchosauruses are tall.
Premise 3: Bronochosauruses are extinct.
Conclusion: Giraffes are extinct.

There is a significant difference between landmines and killing POWs. We gain an incredible tactical advantage which has the potential to be convereted to a strategic win with landmines. Even if you are incredibly outmatched, landmines can be used to slow an enemy's advancement and allow you to retreat or even pin an otherwise overpowering enemy to a certain location which can be eliminated later with airstrikes. Yes there is a collateral damage risk with using landmines but those risks can be mitigated with careful emplacement and techonology that disables the mines by setting their estimated period of usefulness. Now compare this to killing POWs. What significant advantage do we gain by killing POWs? Yes, providing for POWs would free up some soliders, but not much. You don't need a large cadre of soldiers to watch over them (see Guantomino Bay). However, killing POWs so that you can free up some soldiers does come at a cost and a very expensive one at that. The main reason we don't kill POWs is not because it's barbaric, but because we wouldn't want our soliders killed if the roles were reveresed.

Or here's my argument again in sentence form:

Premise 1: Landmines are net benefits effective.
Premise 2: Killing POWs are not net benefits effective.
Conclusion: Landmines can be justifiably be used for warfare.

Re:Hoppers!

[Lord Kano]

The Bataan Death March occurred in 1942, the Geneva Convention was ratified in 1949.

From the almighty WikiPedia.

• It was revised in 1949, and with the modified form and name, it was adopted on August 12 of that year by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, that was held in Geneva from April 21 to August 12, 1949. The Third Geneva Convention entered into force on October 21, 1950.

In case that's not an authoritative enough source for you, I have others.

LK

Re:Hoppers!

[coaxial]

it's widely known and accepted that the US acts as the world's police force.

... whether the world likes it or not.

Yet there's no one to replace the US.

Re:Hoppers!

[VisceralLogic]

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.

Arguably, shooting people with guns is just as barbaric. Should we abandon those, as well? Heck, just killing people is barbaric! We should outlaw war... that would solve the problems. Clearly, if war was illegal, no one would need any guns.

Re:Hoppers!

[VisceralLogic]

it's widely known and accepted that the US acts as the world's police force.

... whether the world likes it or not.

Rapists, murders, and other thugs probably don't much like the police, either. In fact, if everyone was nice and liked everyone else, there would be no need for police or soldiers!

Re:Hoppers!

[Instine]

Like I said, the debate could rage forever (and probably will). One atrocity deserves another? It was Gandhi who said it best: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and soon we will all be blind and toothless"

Just re-read my position.

'My' country (the UK) has committed countless barbarisms throughout history. Should I (and my young American family) die of smallpox because of them? No, is the only conclusion I can come to. I've said it before in here (and been marked a troll, and worse - but that is hardly going to sway my opinion or still my tongue). America, is my friend, and I'm telling you, the current hawkish madness that it's proffering is dangerous for the world, including the US. And if its people can't see that, even when friends tell them so, then they invite less friendly nations/organisations/individuals, to make their view known in a far more bloody manner.

Right now, even though half my family is American, and I'm from the closed military ally of the US, America and its WMD scare the crap out of me more the idea of Iran (and yes I know what Iran is like) getting their hands on nukes. Doesn't that say something? I hope it does.

I'm no pacifist. I know the world and the people in it will for ever be violent and volatile. But that is why governments must do what can be done to lessen this, not further the violent cause.

Imagine this. One day a country is pushed too far. And it realises that it will most likely be annihilated, but it or its neighbours are already on their knees. So it sends a few dirty bombs and a couple of ground nukes to the US. Not so hard. US retaliates 'decisively' with bigger nukes. Now the rest of the world is watching and thinking about self preservation. Precisely because the US has such a vast arsenal of WMD, makes the likely hood of overwhelming retaliation from other country greater. i.e. not a warning shot across her bows, but all out demolition of major cities and facilities. Many Americans believe the rest of the world combined couldn't do this, but actually, there are a small but significant number of countries that could do it alone. That is theterrifying thing about WMD.So your bio 'defence' (and US citizens may see it as benign research, but the rest of the world - rightly or wrongly, it doesn't matter - perceive it as otherwise) is no defence. In fact all it does is up the stakes. Even for you in the states.

strategy is everything.

Re:Hoppers!

[coaxial]

The United States already deploys self-destructing and self-deactivating land mines. In fact by 2010, all landmines used by the United States will be SD/SDA. The mines can be be set to self-destruct from anywhere from 48 hours to 15 days. If they fail to self-destruct, they will automatically deactivate after 90 days.

Re:Hoppers!

[dead sun]

You know what else is a useful tool in the time of war? Killing POWs.

Actually, I'd say that's false. You're thinking far too short term. A side that resorts to killing POWs will only infuriate the enemy they are fighting, causing them to show little restraint towards your troops that are outgunned, caught in an ambush, or in another situation where they would become prisoners. Killing POWs will only result in more casualties for both sides as prisoners aren't taken. Further, if the enemy finds out about POWs being killed, they will not surrender. Why not fight to the death if you will be killed either way? Then there are the effects on morale, as your troops question whether they really should be slaughtering a threat rendered helpless. Sure, in the short term it might work out for you, especially if you're heavier on firepower, but it's not a winning long term strategy. So really, we don't kill POWs because (a) we don't want our POWs to be killed, (b) we wish to give the enemy a reason to surrender, and (c) the disruptive effect on morale weakens our fighting forces. Sure, we may also say we don't kill POWs because it is barbaric or wrong as that boosts morale, but the reality is there's no benefit to doing so.

Landmines, on the other hand, at the very least buy time for the troops that deploy them. Chances are enemy troops will not adopt a fight to the death mentality because they have encountered a barrier. Morale is likely to be boosted as a smaller force holds off a larger threat with minimal casualties. The detriment comes well after the war, when the mines detonate on innocents, and so minelaying has a number of benefits in wartime, and no real detriments during wartime.

Now, regardless of utility, I happen to think it is not okay to deploy dumb mines. I'd be a lot more okay with them if there was a field-wide kill switch programmed into each one, such that the field can be given an order to detonate, leaving nothing behind after the war was done. Frankly, I'd like something like that to be mandatory by agreed international convention, where all fields must be detonated after a conflict ends.

But really, this whole designation about what is or is not barbaric is silly. War is barbaric. War is not about what is okay, it is about what has utility. Killing people, whether they've been designated an enemy or not, is not okay. These are people we're talking about, with lives and families and jobs and houses, and war kills them. I think any conventions we can adopt to lessen the impact of war, during or after is good and noble. But let us not be confused about what war does, and instead think about war in terms of utility, as there is nothing that anybody should find okay about the whole ordeal.

Re:Hoppers!

[plaincorgi]

what happens when the mines self destruct with innocent civilians nearby?

Re:Hoppers!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't aware the US needed a replacement.

Tell me, how would you feel if someone actually did try to replace the US?

Re:Hoppers!

[peacefinder]

"Once the battery is devoid of charge, the landmine is safe for handling by a small child."

That's good... during the timeframe in which the various explosive compounds remain stable. I'm not sure about these particular compunds, but explosives are notorious for becoming unstable over time. If one of these mines is plowed up by a farmer in 80 or 200 years, will it still be safe to handle? (And by "safe to handle" I mean that it needs no special precautions at all... the farmer can simply toss it in a rock pile, burn it, or disassemble it for scrap without risk of any detonation.)

If not, then the problem of unexploded ordinance is merely postponed for future generations who may have forgotten that there was ever a minefield there.

Self-destructing mines would be a much better choice than self-deactivating. Self-destructing has its own problems, of course... a full detonation may still injure a bystander. The best solution would be to trigger a low-order detonation or slow burn while the mine is still buried.

Re:Hoppers!

[peacefinder]

That is an excellent start.

Mr. Bush's administration has clearly outperformed Mr. Clinton's administration on this issue.

Re:Hoppers!

[CRCulver]

The revised version was signed then, but the 1929 version already set rules for the treatment of prisoners. Didn't stop the Japanese, anyway.

Re:Hoppers!

[Hellkitten]

Once the battery is devoid of charge, the landmine is safe for handling by a small child.

I'll believe that sales pitch when the weapon manufacturers remove batteries from their mines, and give those mines to their own children to play with.

But yes I agree that if you absolutely have to use mines these are better than "old fashioned ones. The lesser of two evils and all that.

Couldn't they also add a secondary battery and a small radio transmitter, so when the mine goes inactive it gives away it's position so it can be safely removed before the explosives grow unstable?

Re:Hoppers!

[yoden]

Yuri mind control the cow, crazy ivan the cow... KABOOM!!

Re:Hoppers!

[xenocide2]

I'll believe that sales pitch when the weapon manufacturers remove batteries from their mines, and give those mines to their own children to play with.

And they should also earn the title of "Coolest Parent on the Block EVER!"

Re:Hoppers!

[coaxial]

Listen jackass, you can self-destruct without actually detonating the mine. Car radios do that. All you do is fry the electronics.

Jeez.

Re:Hoppers!

[coaxial]

Actually, the initiative to being SD/SDA landmines and to phase out "dumb" mines began in 1997 under Clinton.

Re:Hoppers!

[peacefinder]

Oh! Well, heck, I take that back.

I gotta say, it did seem rather out of character.

Re:Hoppers!

[geminidomino]

Now that's rich. The US is a shining beacon of goodness and everyone else is a "crook, druggie, murderer, or rapist."

The US has done some heinous shit. Grow up, put down the goddamn flag, and learn your own history.

Re:Hoppers!

[Bing Tsher E]

By 'tactical' use, you meant they can be used more widely, in new deployments, and in higher volume.

Re:Hoppers!

[watanabe]

I'm not going to be on the front lines anywhere and a minefield means that fewer of us have to be there.

That's an immensely selfish position, given the long-term civillian [sic] 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.

Similar conditions do exist in Africa; in Mozambique where some friends of mine do relief work, land mines are a huge problem. These particular landmines are plastic, and during flood season move around with the flooding mud. Much of Mozambique is unfarmable because nobody knows where these undetectable plastic landmines are. Estimated time to clean the country up from landmines is over 100 years with current methods.

(Actually, they are detectable. My friend Roland says the best way is crawling forward with a long heavy stick). The mines in Mozambique are tuned to explode at anything a child's weight or more. However 'useful' landmines are in wartime engagements, they encourage people to leave them behind where they can kill little children, as well as farmers. This is not a good weapon in my opinion.

It seems to me that landmines with radio signaling are a step in the right direction though; a metal detector could tell you where they are, and if they do hop, as described, you'd at least be able to locate them.

Re:Hoppers!

[pnuema]

We don't kill POWs because it is barbaric to do so. We keep them alive because it is a lot easier to get someone to surrender when they know they will be treated better as a POW than they would in their own army. If killing POWs would end wars faster, you can bet your ass we would do it.

Re:Hoppers!

[mi]

Just because these landmines can be easily disabled, doesn't mean that they will be disabled. Landmines kill and maim due to neglegence.

Currently, disabling the mines — even your own — is even harder than laying them down. Which is why it so often not done at all. If it could be done with a push of the button, it would be done more often, if not after during the hostilities, than after the end of the war. I wish, the mines laid by Syrians in the Golans, for example, were like this.

Land mines in principle are terrible ideas. They are indiscriminate warfare.

Maybe. But making them "smart" as described is an improvement.

As most of the conflicts that the US has to deal with now are asymmetrical, what good are landmines going to be?

Most, but not all. Where they aren't good for anything, we are not using them.

Re:Hoppers!

[mi]

Do you really believe that Bush / Clinton are fighting "evil"? Do you really believe that there are people out there who are "evil"?

Yes, I do really believe that Slobodan Milosevic, Charles Taylor, Saddam Hussein — to name only a few — were evil. Kim Jong-Il remains evil. There are no "ifs" nor "buts" about it.

"Evil" from your standpoint is "courage" from theirs. Ever heard the phrase "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"?

I heard it, and it is utterly moronic. This banner is carried by people, who are sooo good at seeing "the other side", the hard to see, they give it equal weight with the most obvious. The Serbs were not fighting for their freedom with neither Bosniaks, nor Horvats, nor Kosovars. The Somali warlord, whom Clinton (reluctantly) ordered arrested (see "Black Hawk Down") was not fighting for anyone's freedom — he was robbing the UN aid distribution. Kim Jong-Il is not fighting for anyone's freedom either — he just wants to preserve his own seat, as did Saddam Hussein.

Your "official" premise thus totally destroyed, let's go to what you really meant — the only people with any kind of the "freedom-fighting" claim, that oppose USA now are Iraqi insurgents. Heck, you even bring up America's founding fathers in comparision. Well, let's hear the insurgents' declaration. What is their list of grievances? Do we impose our own governors upon them? No. Do we dissolve their legislatures? No — we helped them elect their own. Do we levy unfair taxes on Iraqis? No we don't.

What are these "my terrorists, your freedom-fighters" fighting for? Don't begin with "they fight our occupation" — fighting something is simply means, rather than fighting for something, which would be ends. So, what are these "insurgents" fighting for? All we hear about are proclamation of "jihad" and the desirability of the world-wide umma — what other cause are these guys answering to?

The only plausible answer is: "restoration of the perks and privileges, Sunnis have enjoyed under Saddam Hussein". Hardly "freedom-fighting" material...

(Lastly, to put one more nail into your rhethorical coffin, it is the methods, rather than the aims, that makes someone terrorist — the term you introduced into this thread. Shooting at a tank is not terrorism. Targeting a funeral procession is — however noble is your cause.)

I wonder who in today's world will be considered terrorists in 100 years.

Well, yes, the same kind of people, who wear Che Guevara today, will be wearing Zarqawi in a few decades from now. They will be just as wrong, though...

I wonder, where you got all these "talking points" — and why are they all so inaccurate...

Re:Hoppers!

[MrNaz]

Utterly destroyed? Your God Bless America rant is amusing in its ignorance. You really, really need to meet someone from another country. Baby steps, after that you can perhaps travel a bit. After that you might even venture outside the areas considered "safe" for tourists and maybe even meet a real live non-American! Perhaps then you'll realize that America is not God's gift to planet Earth and that the 5.8 billion people *not* living in America aren't just sitting around waiting for you to come liberate them.

Anyway here goes:

First things first. "see Black Hawk Down" ??? You mean the movie? No fking way! You're seriously using a movie as a reference? Wow dude, you need to go back to school. I really shouldn't bother continuing after such a collossal display of myopic, self-inflicted ignorance.

Do "we" impose governors and taxes upon them. Yes. Elected popular governments are overthrown for pro-US, corporate-friendly governments. Taxes aren't called taxes, they are called "corporate profits". See: Ecuador, Panama, Chile, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam and Nicaragua for examples of governments overthrown by the US for dubious reasons. See Pfizer in Nigeria, Nike in China, United Fruit Company in Chile, Shell in Nigeria, Unocal in Afghanistan and Bechtel in Bolivia for examples of US firms pillaging the local populations.

I don't know what is really going on in Iraq at the moment, the world will have to wait until the dust settles before any real information can come out, but all I know is that if Saddam was really such a tiny minority, how is it that a tiny minority of a starving, badly armed country are causing the might of the US military so much greif? Could it be that those who wish the US to leave are not in the minority? You'll probably refute this, as I didn't source the information from the hallowed spring of pure truth that is Hollywood, which you seem to consider so reliable. Also remember that Vietnam was supposedly a war of justice against a minority. I can't believe some Americans (not even the majority any more) are falling for it again.

No Iraqi that I've ever heard, or Muslim anywhere for that matter, has said anything about declaring Jihad on everyone or establishing a world-wide umma. They just want the west and their abusive corporations out of their countries. It's not just Muslim countries but just about every debt-ridden third world country that the international finance cartel has managed to stick huge debts to. They pay rulers to allow them to pillage the country's people and resources, and if the ruler refuses the bribe, they get called a "rogue state" or "communist" or something similar. Examples here include Chilean leader Allende, Jacobo Arbenz Guzman of Guatemala and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. You seem to get your education from US television and movies though, as you consider Che Guevara to be a terrorist. As such, I doubt you'll consider any of those people "decent" either, as they all run contrary to US corporate interests and get painted in a bad light on television and in movies. Heaven forbid that people don't want corporations to rule their lives. Oh no, such people are evil/communist/rogue/terrorist and must be killed at once!

Methods make the terrorist hey? Lets have a look at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and the emerging Steven Green issue. Then there's things like Waco, Ruby Ridge and this. Oh, and what kind of benevolent government needs to spy on its own people in the name of "National Security" and enact laws that make the punishment for copyright infringement greater than robbing an old lady?

And it's BS that the US stopped Milosevic for humanitarian reasons. If they gave a toss about helping people they'd also have done something in Rwanda, East Timor, Chile under Pinnochet, South Africa under Apartheid and a whole host of other atrocities that are happening now. So don't give me this "yea but we are just trying to help" crap. It's all about controlling the distribution of

Re:Hoppers!

[ems2004]

Your comment on reason for having anthrax is true but US does have stockpiles of Bio Weapons. Us is one of very few countries who refuse to sign on ban on Bio Weapons.

Re:Hoppers!

[ultranova]

The point is that sometimes bad things are necessary to prevent even worse things.

You realize, of course, that this is what every genocidal dictator in history has told himself and his underlings to excuse his actions ? The problem is that once you accept this justification, once you declare your willingness to do evil to prevent greater evil, there's really nothing you can't be made to do just by painting a large enough boogeyman that the evil is supposed to stave off. This, in turn, is the good old "think of the children / beware of terrorists" crap again.

If you start dealing with the devil, you will lose, since Hell has all the lawyers...

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.

Actually, several despots and madmen have been empowered to commit their evils by being armed with bombs, guns and land mines and provided training in their use by the US, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden being two of the most famous examples.

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.

Neccessary sacrifices, huh ? Just keep that in mind if you ever come to be considered one of them.

Re:Hoppers!

[mi]

Your God Bless America rant is amusing in its ignorance. You really, really need to meet someone from another country. Baby steps, after that you can perhaps travel a bit.

I am from another country. Displeased to meet you... And I am not an exception. A couple of years back, one of the uber-Left icons Margaret Cho (herself hardly a WASP) in an interview to "Time Out New York" lamented the immigrants, and how they tend to vote Conservative.

We know evil, and we are glad, America is fighting it, when it does...

They just want the west and their abusive corporations out of their countries.

And I was wondering, if there really exist morons like the "Team America" cartoon was portraying to be members of their F.A.G... There are, I guess. "Corporations sit in their giant corporation buildings, acting all corporationy". Priceless...

Re:Hoppers!

[MrNaz]

I'm sorry, I can't distill a point from your last post. Please re-read my post before it and attempt to respond. Just a few points, though:

a) Stop referring to television and movies! You're embarrassing yourself! I don't believe you're from another country. No non-American would incessantly refer to Hollywood movies and stand-up comedians in a political discussion. Unless you've been living there since a very early age. Stupidity is contagious, you know.

b) Margaret Cho is ultra left wing? Come again? Margaret Cho is a friggin' local comedian with a major chip on her shoulder. Racial activist? Maybe. Feminst? Definately. "Ultra-left" wing or politically aware? I don't think so.

Please, for the love of God, don't refer to any more television shows, movies, magazines or your local corner performer. I'm starting to feel sorry for you. Really, that level of ignorance must be physically painful. Now go back, re-read my last post and come up with a decent counter point.

Re:Hoppers!

[hopethisnickisnottak]

No, by tactical, I meant they can be used to influence combat in realtime, as opposed to strategic, where they just sit there and wait for the enemy to walk into them (which may happen 5 months afterwards or so). It has nothing to do with the volumes.

Re:Hoppers!

[andphi]

Should we be expecting the Rise of the Termoonators anytime soon?

Sick country

[Anonymous Coward]

oh great, we really need more innovation in using a weapon not designed to kill but designed to maime people, then again nothing America and its sick administration/populace suprises anyone thesedays

just ban landmines and ban the fskers who advocate their use

http://www.icbl.org/

Re:Sick country

[msuarezalvarez]

Yup. The fact that the US and China and Japon and many others are watching every single move the north koreans make in in the south direction has only a negligible effect on North Korea.

Don't you feel like contributing to world peace? Go make some landmines!

Re:Sick country

[ScottyH]

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.

Re:Sick country

[p!ssa]

I would support it, not to injure the Mexicans from getting thier slave wages, but to prevent the true terrorists from crossing our most vulnerable entry point. I'm amazed they havent done it yet, or they may already have and we just dont know they are here.

Re:Sick country

[dbIII]

minefield on the Israeli-Gaza border, because the fence to keep out suicide bombers and gun-toting terrorists isn't working

Which border - the 1967 one, the Olso agreement one or some other speculated border from last week? With the settlements there really is no border - there are little bits of Israel all over the tiny chunk of Palestine, so the minefields would also blow up Israeli citizens - plus I'm sure there will be later advance over the line, so a minefield is a stupid thing for Israeli forces to deploy before any issues of blowing up civilians are considered. Let's hope it is the last colonial war.

Re:Sick country

[hunterx11]

Once you decide that you're going to create a device to kill a man, then the morality of HOW you do it is very negligible.

Bombs and bullets don't kill randomly kill innocent people in a country during peacetime. Well, unexploded bombs do, but that's why we have an obligation to make sure that they explode, or to remove them after the war is over.

Re:Sick country

[Firethorn]

And the mines are mentioned in the article aren't of the 'fire and forget' variety. You're going to be keeping careful track of these suckers, and they can be shut off very easily for clearing.

Re:Sick country

[denttford]

The Gaza-Israel border has a wall and a highway around it, following a line consistent with the 1948/9 armistice line (The Green Line). What variations are you talking about?

There haven't been any Israeli civilians over that line for the better part of a year. GP's point stands; but I don't expect APLMs there any time soon.

Colonial war. That too is humourous, but I'll take your evaluation of history with the same value you place on research.

Re:Sick country

[dbIII]

The Gaza-Israel border has a wall and a highway around it, following a line consistent with the 1948/9 armistice line (The Green Line)

Please at least read a newspaper - Israel has expanded a lot since 1948. It's possible you misinterpreted what I said and are only considering the town of Gaza - which is a fairly limited way to look at things because the place is tiny, but even then I suspect there are still some Israeli journalists if no other citizens still living in Gaza. The colonial bit should be bleedingly obvious due to the settlements and the history of the place since the Bofors declaration - it's gone way beyond any chance of saying who is right and who is wrong decades ago, but at least don't ridicule me when I call it what it is. I live in a colonised country too and I'm not about to move out if someone related to the original inhabitants wants the land - the only difference is it happened before I was born and there isn't any more fighting over it.

My main point is that it would be very stupid to use landmines in that situation if you are part of the occupying forces - just the events of this week showed that a forgotten minefield could have killed advancing Isreali troops. My feelings on the issue is that it is also a moral choice to not use or possess land mines, military gas weapons or anthrax.

This...

[denmarkw00t]

is going to make Metal Gear Solid much more difficult

Re:This...

[rmjohnso]

I won't ever be able to get around to installing other games. I'll be too busy trying to beat Minesweeper.

Re:This...

[Xymor]

Nah, Kojima-san would just give us a couple E.M.P. grenades, and we'd get past that smart minefield faster then you can say "Revolver Ocelot". Seriously, a simple radio jamming device should do the trick.

I must say

[ScrewMaster]

Mines that move? That is goddamn frightening.

Re:I must say

[alcmaeon]

"Mines that move? That is goddamn frightening."

Don't worry, if it doesn't work any better than any of the other shit the U.S. has and deploys, then we stil won't be able to whup up on starving third world countries whose fighters are armed only with AK47's, ancient Soviet RPG's, and booby-trapped dogs.

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).

Smart Mines..

[ackthpt]

Odd. I thought we were getting out of the business of mines. It seems Diana totally lived in vain.

I was a bit taken back when some military channel was rattling away on a satellite TV and all these amazing land and water craft were being shown. Now I know why the USA DOD accounts for such a massive amount of the USA budget while cutting soldiers benefits. Even generals like to have their toys. Isn't this all a bit Dr. Strangelove?

Re:Smart Mines..

[disturbedite]

i thought we were out of the land mine business as well. but this administration has pulled us out of so many weapons treaties it makes your head spin. then again, maybe we're just sticking to our guns as far as history is concerned by manufacturing weapons and selling or giving them to other countries....

Re:Smart Mines..

[ackthpt]

maybe we're just sticking to our guns as far as history is concerned by manufacturing weapons and selling or giving them to other countries....

And then the US President is so surprised and disappointed by all the terrorism and anti-US sentiment in the world.

Re:Smart Mines..

[couchslug]

"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.

Re:Smart Mines..

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Don't forget sanctimonious South Africa...

Re:Smart Mines..

[Kadin2048]

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.

Re:Smart Mines..

[Anonumous Coward]

Perhaps your competitors in the arms business are simply smarter than you. They do good business selling arms to peaceful countries, rather than to criminals and madmen. Unlike you, they only sell arms, they don't go about starting wars of their own. As a result, they get to keep their profits rather than waste billions on wars they can't win. Finally, as a master marketing stunt, they loudly condemn the dictators that you keep appointing all over the place, your Pinochets and Videlas and Papadopouloi and Husseins. While US politics, just like US business, can't see further than this presidential term and next quarter's results, those pesky Europeans tend to look years and decades ahead and plan business slower, but more profitable in the long run. And they get all the goodwill too: you never hear of "anti-Swiss sentiments" and all the money, including that of your pet dictators, is in their banks.

Re:Smart Mines..

[maxume]

When did the fighting start?

Detection

[Khomar]

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.

Re:Detection

[hurfy]

OR

First, run a robot thru the minefield to blow one or more up.

then blow up anything that moves to fill in the hole you just made :O

repeat as needed.

Re:Detection

[Martin Blank]

MetalStorm came up with an idea a few years ago that would have a series of launchers pose as a targeted minefield. Hidden by appropriate camoflauge, it would have sensors that would detect the approach of enemy vehicles (and possibly soldiers). It would identify the vehicles based on the sensor input (visual, thermal, acoustic, seismic) and determine based on other factors, such as soldiers walking nearby, how many, what type, and what pattern of munitions to use to destroy the force. For example, a wide-spread infantry walking along with supporting APCs/IFVs would garner a wide spread of fragmentation munitions, with narrow spreads of armor piercing munitions. The system could be cleaned up and recovered by a couple of soldiers and a truck afterward (just don't use a truck from the enemy's stores).

Re:Detection

[Umbral Blot]

No, you simply have to send the signal below the noise floor. GPS uses this as well. Basically the singal is indistinguishable from background radiation unless you know exactly what you are looking for.

Re:Detection

[Frogbert]

Well perhaps but wouldn't a big field of mines all chatting together make locating a single mine quite difficult to locate?

Re:Detection

[Anonymous Coward]

The goal of a minefield is not to be secret. It's supposed to be an obstacle which requires you know where it is.

I wrote about half the code for these mines (and we're slashdotted 5 years later...). I'm sure you'll be tickled to know they use Linux.

Re:Detection

[supabeast!]

"Wouldn't a landmine that transmits a signal be relatively easy to detect? Just look for the signal and disable the mine."

A good metal detector is also a decent way to detect many landmines; but often that isn't the point. Landmines aren't as much a tool for blowing people up as they are a tool for deterring people from sneaking into an area. If you're slowly moving across a minefield, using a signal detector to find the mines, then digging them up and moving on, your chances of doing it unnoticed are generally nil.

Re:Detection

[ceejayoz]

They'd only have to transmit the instant they detonate, to clue in the rest of the mines. I imagine the transmissions could be kept exceedingly short to prevent triangulation, too.

Re:Detection

[Anonymous Coward]

Except if they try to sell them to other governments without making the source freely available.

Re:Detection

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

All due credit to your achievements, but I would disagree about the goal of a landmine not being secret. If an enemy can see clearly where the minefield starts and ends, he is forewarned and has several well defined options to remove the minefield. If he does not know where it is, an advancing force is demoralised by the surprise attack they cannot retaliate against, slowed to a crawl (very desireable) and of course damaged by the randomly dropped mines. The only way that a minefield can be a useful visible obstacle is if you are trying to secure a public facility, or keep in inmates, for example in a prison.

Which brings up another interesting point which another poster touched on. Surely these mines are extremely visible, not being buried? Whats to stop attackers from simply lobbing grenades in until there is a clear path? And even if they are camouflaged differently for each mine (which I can only see working in scrub or possibly very rocky territory, itself a hindrance to the mine's mobility), once they start moving surely they are even more visible? Thats entirely discounting the radio pulses they must put out making them yet more detectable?

All in all a heroic effort, but too many of the underlying ideas appear to be crucially flawed. Feel free to correct me on any particular point.

Re:Detection

[NaDrew]

when the particular war that used them was over

Didn't you hear? Wars don't end anymore. It's much more useful--and profitable--to "fight" an undeclared "war" against an amorphous enemy that only exists because you funded it in the first place.

Re:Detection

[NaDrew]

a big field of mines all chatting together

<mine45234> lolz
<mine49632> omg fag
* mine49632 has exploded
* mine45234 has exploded

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:Detection

[TheDugong]

The whole point of mines is to slow down or channel an attack. Fewer troops/hardware get to attack the defender in a given amount of time, either by narrowing the front, being blown up or by having to slow down to disable the mines. This means the defender can use less troops/hardware to defend said area which in turn allows more flexibility for the bigger picture.

I remember reading that in WWII Zhokov (USSR General) would attack (well, actually, he wouldn't attack, he would send others to do it, but I am sure you get the picture) over a mine field in exactly the same way as they would if the same area had protection from artillery and/or armour because the end result would be more or less the same.

If they slowed down the attack to disable mines, the Germans would simply have the time to improve other defenses, move artillery or armour in to counter attack etc. If they allowed themselves to get channelled then they would get clobbered by the artillery waiting for this very thing.

Essentially, there was no net gain either way.

At the end of it all it is simply a numbers game.

Re:Detection

[megaditto]

My point exactly.

Those legless kids only have themselves to blame for 'jumping' and 'playing' instead of crawling behind a metal-detector like they are supposed to.

Post your address, and let's train YOUR kids next.

Re:Detection

[petermgreen]

your confusing purpose with side effect.

the purpose is to stop the enemy either moving quickly or sneaking arround unnoticed. If a few of them get killed/maimed too thats a bonus but probablly not a significant effect.

killing and maiming civilians after the war is over is a (very sad) side effect and is the main reason for efforts to ban them. Unfortunately banning treaties are not going to stop them being used by poor desperate forces who are the ones most likely to leave minefields behind with no records and no deactivation timers.

Re:Detection

[waferhead]

"The goal of a minefield is not to be secret. It's supposed to be an obstacle which requires you know where it is."

OK, lets make it easy!

1) Make lots of sturdy, light, weatherproof signs that say "MINEFIELD!" in six languages.
(And with a graphic of someone losing a leg etc just in case)
2) Sell them to the hihest bidder
3) As deterrance is the point of a minefield... The sign should prove sufficient to any sane individual.

4) Profit?

Admittedly, eventually someone would figure it out, but by that time, it wouldn't matter.
(Trick would be to actually put the same sign up to mark REAL minefields....)

Re:Detection

[iamlucky13]

Along the exact same lines: "Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead."

Farragaut didn't have time to prance about in the minefield at Mobile Bay while being shot at by confederate ships and shore batteries. In fact, I don't think any of the ships hit mines except for the USS Tecumseh, which discovered them in the first place.

Re:Detection

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Yes but isn't that already achieved if you keep the minefield secret? Plus a couple of other nasty side effects which I detailed above? Honestly, once you know the boundaires of the minefield, just drive a herd of cattle over it.

Re:Detection

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

At the end of it all it is simply a numbers game.

Unless you have cows.

Re:Detection

[maxwell demon]

But they still have to distribute the Linux source code on request, even if they didn't modify it.

One question which arises: Does planting a mine count as distribution?

Re:Detection

[cagle_.25]

Think of landmines as the modern version of a 3' fence a la Gettysburg...; 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.

Yes but isn't that already achieved if you keep the minefield secret?

No. Think in terms of deterrence -- the larger strategic purpose is to cause the enemy to *not want to go that way*.

Honestly, once you know the boundaires of the minefield, just drive a herd of cattle over it.

We're talking about anti-tank mines here. Cows don't have enough weight or enough metal content to activate a anti-tank mine. AND, have you ever driven a herd of cows? You can't exactly say "Now see that field over there? Walk on every inch of it!" They clump when you don't want them to, and scatter when you want them not to.

Re:Detection

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

If your men start blowing up along one line, you don't want to go that way. Also anti-tank mines are largely easy to remove by hand, thats why these hopping mines were created. Because they had resorted to surrounding them with anti-personnell mines. As for the herding of cowes, just fire guns where you don't want them to go.

Maybe I'm missing something...

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't one just use a WiFi detector to locate these things?

Re:Maybe I'm missing something...

[NeilTheStupidHead]

Even better, you've got a large network if wireless devices: generate a large volume of radio noise and interfere with the mines' communication so they don't know when & where to move or turn all your own tech off and drop an EMP. Either the mines are now completely inert or their computers are fried and they revert to stationary step-boom mines. Though, if they're designed to revert to dumb explosives when their electronic components fail, they'd probably do so when the batteries run out as well.

Hack your way through?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

who supports land mines ?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the list of the 40 countries that have not signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty as of 26 Apr 06. The 3 that have signed the treaty but not ratified are show in bold.

These signatory states have made a political commitment to joining the treaty, and they have a legal obligation not to take actions that would violate the treaty.

      1. Armenia
      2. Azerbaijan
      3. Bahrain
      4. Burma
      5. China
      6. Cuba
      7. Egypt
      8. Finland
      9. Georgia
    10. India
    11. Indonesia
    12. Iran
    13. Iraq
    14. Israel
    15. Kazakhstan
    16. Korea, North
    17. Korea, South
    18. Kuwait
    19. Kyrgyzstan
    20. Lao PDR
    21. Lebanon
    22. Libya
    23. Marshall Islands
    24. Micronesia
    25. Mongolia
    26. Morocco
    27. Nepal
    28. Oman
    29. Pakistan
    30. Palau
    31. Poland
    32. Russian Federation
    33. Saudi Arabia
    34. Singapore
    35. Somalia
    36. Sri Lanka
    37. Syria
    38. Tonga
    39. Tuvalu
    40. United Arab Emirates
    41. United States
    42. Uzbekistan
    43. Vietnam

reads like a whos who of third world countries and banana republics, what good company USA keeps

Re:who supports land mines ?

[Distinguished Hero]

Ever heard of the Korean DMZ. The US probably plans to use these things to prevent Kim Jung-Il from invading South Korea (incidentally, both the Koreas are on your list, I wonder why...). I'm not aware of any other part of the world where the US uses landmines (care to enlighten me?). So yeah, damn the "military-industrial complex" for helping keep the South Koreans from ending up impoverished, starving, and oppressed like their brethren in the north.

reads like a whos who of third world countries and banana republics, what good company USA keeps

Actually, a huge portion of those countries are second-world or former second-world countries (communist countries that sided against the US during the Cold War). You'll also notice that China, Vietnam, India, a whole bunch of Muslim Countries (Iran, Pakistan, etc.) are on your list, so if we go by population (not number of countries), the majority of the world (or very close to it) has not joined the treaty.

Re:who supports land mines ?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:who supports land mines ?

[Em Ellel]

reads like a whos who of third world countries and banana republics, what good company USA keeps

Without mentioning the merits of said treaty, lets see, of 43 you listed, at least 19 are not third world (probably more, I just did a quick glance count), so lets stop with the ethnic slurs. Besides, a MUCH higher percentage of those who signed are third world (something like 116 of 151, again quicky count) - so if you want a real "who's who of third world nations" read THAT list.

-Em

Re:who supports land mines ?

[crush]

I'm not aware of any other part of the world where the US uses landmines (care to enlighten me?). Kuwait and Iraq in 1991 and they were shipped to but not deployed in Kosovo. http://hrw.org/backgrounder/arms/arms0805/

Re:who supports land mines ?

[SensitiveMale]

reads like a whos who of third world countries and banana republics, what good company USA keeps

Land mines are extremely effective and it would be stupid to not use them.

The land mines people are complaining about are the ones that are placed hundreds of thousands at a time and left for decades.

The US does not deploy land mines that way and our land mines can be destroyed when they are past their usefulness.

To complain just because the US hasn't signed that treaty is the same as saying that the Police shouldn't use firearms because criminals do.

Re:who supports land mines ?

[gkhan1]

I've heard this argument several times, and I don't really buy it. I mean, if North Korea wanted to attack South Korea they could crush them like a bug regardless of landmines. I mean, it's not like it's terribly hard to launch a volley of missiles that would make Seoul into a parking lot, and the fields of landmines could be dismantled in a few weeks with a and army as huge and dedicated as North Koreas. More so because the leaders wouldn't be so afraid to take huge losses (since when has North Korea had much respect for human lives?)

Besides, they could easily ship hundreds of thousands of soliders by the water if they wanted too. I just don't buy the argument that North Korea are afraid of the landmines. No, they're afraid of being attacked (and possibly nuked) by the western world. They may be able to kick South Koreas ass, but if NATO and some European countries got involved, they'd be in for a spanking.

So why does the US oppose the treaty? Honestly, I have no idea. They were one of the initiators of the treaty, and while I have no love for the present political situation in the US, they would never resort to the heartlessness that is landmines. And don't come with your "industrial military complex campaign contributions"-arguments either. That doesn't really apply to this case.

Then again, I might be wrong. I am no general or military strategist after all. Maybe all that's stopping a war that would make every conflict since Vietnam pale in comparison is a few hundred thousand landmines. I just don't buy it.

Re:who supports land mines ?

[McBainLives]

1. Armenia - in a bad neighborhood
              2. Azerbaijan - in a bad neighborhood
              3. Bahrain - how many do they need? One?
              4. Burma - never fight a land war in Asia
              5. China - don't they have that "great wall" thingy to keep the Mongolians out?
              6. Cuba - paranoid
              7. Egypt - in a bad neighborhood
              8. Finland - don't trust the Russians
              9. Georgia - in a bad neighborhood
        10. India - should really focus on sea mines- no one's gonna hump it over the himalayas to attack. Too many Yeti.
        11. Indonesia - really only used to automatically clear palm trees that fall on the beaches during typhoon season
        12. Iran - paranoid
        13. Iraq - they just got a new government- who knows? They may sign on (despite the bad neighborhood).
        14. Israel - in a really really bad neighborhood. Wouldn't you?
        15. Kazakhstan - in a bad neighborhood
        16. Korea, North - paranoid
        17. Korea, South - hardly blame 'em
        18. Kuwait - probably don't need 'em any more. Not like Iraq is gonna invade again
        19. Kyrgyzstan - don't need 'em. Nobody knows where they are.
        20. Lao PDR - never fight a land war in Asia
        21. Lebanon - too late, the Syrians have already infiltrated
        22. Libya - probably still a bit paranoid
        23. Marshall Islands - see Indonesia, supra
        24. Micronesia - see Indonesia, supra
        25. Mongolia - don't they have that Great Wall thingy to keep the Chinese in?
        26. Morocco - not the greatest neighborhood
        27. Nepal - must be really hard to place 'em- they keep sliding down the mountains. Regardless- no one in their right mind is gonna mess with the Gurkhas. Or the Yeti. But mainly the Gurkhas.
        28. Oman - OK, maybe they need as many as two.
        29. Pakistan - in a bad neighborhood
        30. Palau - see Indonesia, supra (the palm trees thing)
        31. Poland - don't trust the Russians
        32. Russian Federation - don't trust the Finns or the Poles
        33. Saudi Arabia - having a hard time finding other ways to spend their money
        34. Singapore - they'll probably cane you for stepping on one and messing up the beach
        35. Somalia - No government is currently available to sign treaties, please call again.
        36. Sri Lanka - Arthur C. Clarke is a fiesty old devil- gotta keep him in line.
        37. Syria - paranoid
        38. Tonga - see Indonesia, supra
        39. Tuvalu - see Indonesia, supra
        40. United Arab Emirates - see Bahrain, supra
        41. United States - right. As soon as we sign that Kyoto thing, we'll get back to you.
        42. Uzbekistan - in a bad neighborhood
        43. Vietnam - why that "never fight a land war in Asia" rule exists

Re:who supports land mines ?

[Em Ellel]

That list is not so different from the list of countries that still permit the death penalty. I suppose that comes from a general disregard for human life common to countries in both lists.

Very powerful point... except it is not really true. I hate when people make up crap on the spot to justify whatever they want to say. WMD's anyone? Yes, there is an intersection between these lists, but only about half of the countries listed above have death penalty, and most countries that have death penalty are NOT on this list. (See here)

-Em

Re:who supports land mines ?

[frogstar_robot]

Actually, South Korea is militarily much more powerful than North Korea. They have a vibrant economy, advanced weaponry, and, counting reserves, more men under arms. They can easily defend themselves.

I thought NK was supposed to have the world's fourth largest standing army. I can see SK having more advanced weaponry and ammo to kill them with but just how are "reserves" counted? Also, Seoul is said to have one hell of a lot of dialed in artillery pointed at it. In the event the NK/SK mini cold war goes hot, SK will pretty much lose Seoul off the bat. SK has a LOT of incentive to maintain the status quo.

I doubt China is terribly happy with the potential loose cannon in their backyard these days. Provided China's borders and interests aren't threatened, I don't see them being terribly eager to prop up NK militarily this time around. They have likely made it clear to Kim Jong Il just how far their support would go. China is in business these days and KimmieBoy dredging up moldy Cold War BS is just bad bad bad for it.

In the event Kim Jong Il grows a dick and tries to take SK, he'll do a lot of damage initially. Seoul will be a smoking hole in the ground, the DMZ overrun and some ground taken in the first days. Provided we don't menace their borders, China will likely be more than happy to let us and SK pound them from the air and either push their armies back across the DMZ or decimate them pretty thoroughly. After that an understanding would have to be reached. I have no idea what that would look like. Slicing NK up Germany style might go over. Leaving NK politically intact but with their military kept stunted enforced by the US and China would probably work better.

Should Kim Jong Il be foolish enough to go nuclear, I suspect we'll tell China either you turn them into a glass parking lot or we will. As a courtesy, we'll make sure you're not downwind of the fallout. Come to think of it, does NK have any reason not to be deterred by what we could throw at them? NK and SK are STUCK with the current situation.

The smartest thing for NK to do is to pull a Roman Senate on Kimmieboy and get themselves a saner oligarchy in it's place. Losing the personality cult was the smartest move both the Soviet Union and China ever made.

Re:who supports land mines ?

[geobeck]

8. Finland
14. Israel
17. Korea, South
18. Kuwait
28. Oman
31. Poland
32. Russian Federation
33. Saudi Arabia
34. Singapore
40. United Arab Emirates
41. United States

reads like a whos who of third world countries and banana republics...

[A few words to prevent this reply from being all quoted text because, really, what else needs to be said?]

Re:who supports land mines ?

[RabidMonkey]

So really, the countries who didn't sign are the ones who really need to sign (US, Iran, Koreas, China), and some countries that aren't likely to matter anyways (Finland?).

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:who supports land mines ?

[guruevi]

It's also nice to know that the US didn't sign it because most of those mines are made (and invented/improved) in the USA. According to Human Rights Watch, between 1969 and 1992, the country was responsible for exporting at least 4.4 million landmines to 32 or more countries. US landmines have reportedly been used in Angola, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, Somalia and Zambia.

The USA is also among the greatest stockpilers (4th in row) of landmines.

For those who say/think that the US doesn't use landmines: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-12-10-land mines-usat_x.htm => quote: The Pentagon is preparing to use anti-personnel land mines in a war with Iraq

For the USA it would be too much of an economic problem (for some people related to both Clinton and Bush) to ban landmines. Landmines are good for nothing. They are easy to deploy and cheap but hard and expensive to clean up and it is often not done properly or at all leaving a lot of innocent casualities long after. They are mainly used in the psychology of battle. A mine is not made to kill someone, it is made to disable soldiers and dishearten the rest of them that see it happening.

Re:who supports land mines ?

[WilburCobb]

> reads like a whos who of third world countries and banana republics,
> what good company USA keeps

Man, you must read the list again. This has nothing to do with third world or "banana republics". These are conflict zones that had wars all over the 20th century, almost all under the influence or direct participation of USA. It is not USA keeping company of bad guys with sombreros and moustaches, it is the really the other way round.

Re:who supports land mines ?

[hazem]

Actually, I didn't make anything up. I did a spot check against a list found at http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html. Without doing a thorough comparison, there were many common entries on both lists.

So, doing a careful comparison, there are 26 out of the 43 that support the death penalty. In either case, both list puts the US in some pretty sad company.

The fact that it's just more than half are shared between the two lists doesn't really do a whole lot to make me stand up and say I'm proud to be an American. As an American and a veteran, I'd personally like to see my country hold itself to a higher standard.

Countries that both support the Death Penalty and are not signatories to the land mine ban:
Bahrain
China
Cuba
Egypt
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Kazakhstan
Korea, North
Korea, South
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Lebanon
Libya
Mongolia
Oman
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Somalia
Syria
United Arab Emirates
United States
Uzbekistan
Vietnam

Re:who supports land mines ?

[Rich0]

The last time the U.S. used antipersonnel mines was in the Gulf War in 1991 and according to a study recently released by the General Accounting Office, the Bush Administration is reported to be reviewing war plans that include plans for the use of mines. The Pentagon has said it "retains the right to use landmines."

Keep in mind that the US military has a plan for EVERYTHING. I'm sure that if martians showed up and started melting people in Chicago, the US military would have a full set of plans ready to go. They would probably have plans for using or not using nuclear bombs, biological weapons. nerve gas, and landmines. They would probably also have plans for using or not using tinfoil-wrapped umbrellas as an area defense measure against alien microwave guns, and probably a stockpile of said umbrellas and foil. It is just in the nature of the US military to plan for everything - that doesn't mean the US actually expects to use said plans.

So, when you hear that the US is updating plans for the use of nuclear bunker-busting bombs in Iran, it doesn't mean that anybody expects to use them at all. It just means that if some Iranian does something really stupid that nobody is expecting them to do, that we'll be prepared to neutralize them on a moment's notice. Ditto for plans to invade North Korea, or China. Nobody expects a dictator who is secure to launch an offensive that will only serve to get himself killed - but they might just do it anyway, and it only pays to be prepared.

The fact is that landmines are an extremely effective method for denying an area to an enemy without having to post thousands of soldiers on the ground where they end up getting shot or IED'd. They have HUGE downsides as well, and the US army should think twice before using them. However, if it is a questino of 5 civilians 10 years from now, or 500 soldiers next week, most likely the soldiers will win out. And I'm sure the US would have every intention of clearing out the mines when it is done with them - probably very thoroughly, but I'm sure not with 100% success. Still, the fact is that landmines are a pretty trivial problem when smoking is still widespread, and cars are still piloted manually. Even if the US doesn't deploy mines, it is certain that the enemy will, and the US will still end up cleaning up after them...

Re:who supports land mines ?

[Rich0]

Well, unexploded cluster bombs really aren't any different than any other kind of unexploded bomb. A certain percentage of all bombs are duds, and can be very dangerous. The only difference is that there tend to be a lot more cluster bombs lying around after an attack just because so many submunitions are deployed.

The only solution to unexploded ordinance is to not drop ordinance at all. I'm sure this is going to be accepted by any nation without an air force, and just about nobody else. For that matter, count out artillery shells as well - I'm sure some percentage of those don't detonate.

Unfortunately, people get killed in war. The solution is to avoid war whenever possible, but sometimes there is no avoiding it, simply because there are lots of idiots out there. If you pacify some dictator it just means that his demands get twice as bad the next time around, and two more spring up to join him. The solution is to carry a big stick, try not to use it much, and when you do use it make sure you cut off the head of the snake and stick it on a pike. In the end this is the most humane solution and tends to get the fewest number of civilians killed. Unfortunately, this hasn't been the policy practiced by the US of late. After 9/11 the Taliban had to be made an example of, but there really wasn't any need to go beyond that. After Kuwait Sadaam should have probably been removed from leadership then and there - you can't punish somebody by merely returning things back to the status quo - failing that he should have probably been left alone the second time around until he tried something stupid again. Dictators that mistreat their citizens need to be reigned in as well - maybe not via invasion, but the UN need to stand up to dictators more. One fundamental right that the UN should stand up for is the right of citizens to leave their nation freely - this is probably the single most definitive measure of whether a government is oppressive - whether it allows its citizens to leave freely.

Ok, I'm starting to ramble here. In any case, the problem isn't really cluster bombs or land mines. Those issues will take care of themselves once the big problems get resolved...

Re:who supports land mines ?

[students]

Amnesty International numbers for 2005, by the way.

Re:who supports land mines ?

[TubeSteak]

The big issue with landmines is only with antipersonnel landmines.

The U.S. used to be a big exporter, but Bush Sr. did a lot towards changing that. Under Bush Sr, there was a moratorium passed in the Congress/Senate & signed into law. Clinton supported & signed legislation extending the moratorium.

While Clinton would not sign the international ban without an exemption for their use in Korea, he did start the ball rolling towards acceptance of the ban.

Unfortunately, the Bush Jr. Administration changed the policy 180 degrees.
http://hrw.org/backgrounder/arms/arms0805/

If you read that link, you'll see they mention funding for a new antipersonell mine system with "full production decision expected in 2008." Ya wanna know why 2008? because the U.S. moratorium expires in 2008.

A lot of people are pissed off about this.
http://www.google.com/search?q=antipersonnel+bush+ expire+2008

Re:who supports land mines ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Land mines are extremely effective and it would be stupid to not use them.

According to the UN, 80% of the casualties of landmines are civilians and not soldiers. Draw your own conclusions about the morality of using them.

Re:who supports land mines ?

[Asic Eng]

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Either mines are necessary in some cases or they aren't. If they are necessary sometimes, then another situation might occur in the future when you need them. If they are not necessary you can remove them in all cases.

Re:who supports land mines ?

[Shihar]

First off, the article that talks about the US using mines in Afganistan is only aledged. Second, the gator mines in question are a type of mine that self destructs after a given time.

As far as the "plans" to use mines goes, I would be pissed off if my government didn't have plans to use land mines. Hell, I would be pissed off to learn that the government doesn't have a plan to deal with an alien invasion. I am pretty sure that if you went through the "plans" that the NSA and the Pentagon have on file, talking about using land mines in Iraq (which as far as I and your sources know they have not in the most recent war) should be the last of your worries. There are government agencies out there that spend their lives thinking up horrible situations and horrible solutions. This is a good thing.

We don't know how things will turn out at any given moment. Having a plan to nuke Iran or invade Israel might not sound like a good idea at the time, but it is good that if great need ever arose, someone has a plan waiting to be used. It is much better to have a plan that grows dust sitting in a file cabinet twelve security check points deep in the Pentagon that can be used, then it is to need such a plan and not have it. If "plans" to do bad things that are never done offend you, don't look any deeper. Plans to use landmines are easily one of the more benign plans the US government (and most other governments for that matter) has on file.

Re:who supports land mines ?

[Shihar]

Actually, the balance of power is not so clear. In a purely conventional fight, I have little doubt that South Korea would come out on top. You are right to say that South Korea has a better army with much better weaponry. Not only that, but the South Koreans as a people are pretty damn fanatical about NOT being ruled by their decrepit and starving neighbor to the north. The fact that the US would be there to back them out would only tip the odds well in favor of South Korea... in a conventional fight.

The problem is that North Korea would never fight a conventional war with South Korea. North Korea is loaded to the teeth with the (wait for it...) WMDs. No, this isn't Saddam where we "think" they have them and they don't. There is not a question in the world that North Korea is armed to the teeth with chemical and biological weapons. Forget nukes, North Korea has enough chemical weapons to get the job done and then some. To make matters worse, Seoul is within artillery range of North Korea. In a war between the Koreas you can rest assure that the opening move by North Korea would be blanket South Korea with chemical weapons via artillery, then lob off mid range missiles to hit knock out the rest of South Korea. In a surprise attack South Korea's chances for short term victory are actually pretty grim.

Long term of course North Korea stands no chance. South Korea could muster a force to hold the North back and the US, NATO, and probably even the EU would jump in to fight. That said, the civilian and military casualties suffered by all sides would be horrific. Throw in the fact that North Korea is run by a fellow who is certainly insane, and you are talking about a pretty damn scary situation. It isn't USSR and the US going toe to toe in nuclear Armageddon scary, but for the folks of South Korea, it might as well be.

Re:who supports land mines ?

[geminidomino]

Yep, what scummy Banana Republicans, those damn Finns...

Re:who supports land mines ?

[Shihar]

Dictators that mistreat their citizens need to be reigned in as well - maybe not via invasion, but the UN need to stand up to dictators more. One fundamental right that the UN should stand up for is the right of citizens to leave their nation freely - this is probably the single most definitive measure of whether a government is oppressive - whether it allows its citizens to leave freely.

I suppose if you owned sheep you would hire a wolf to police them.

The UN is MADE of dictators who brutalize their own citizens. The UN is not the place to fix dictators who brutalize their population. Then UN watched the genocide in Yugoslavia for 10 years and did nothing. It took the US and Britain bullying NATO into doing something before that mess was cleaned up. The UN did absolutely NOTHING during the Rwandan genocide. Rwanda lost double digit percentage points of its population and the UN didn't lift a finger. Right now the Sudan is still a mess and the UN has done thing. The UN can't step between Israel and Palestine. The UN can't help in Iraq or Afghanistan. The UN has done nothing to solve the conflict in East Timor. It wrote angry letters to Zimbabwe as its "president" bulldozed entire neighborhoods of political rivals.

The UN is an utterly worthless institution for world policing. I am not saying that the UN doesn't have its place. I am just saying that its place never ever involves the use of force. If you want to sign environmental treaties, seek diplomatic solutions to problems, or coordinate humanitarian aid, the UN is the place to look. If you want someone to go beat the piss out of someone else for doing horrible and cruel things to other humans, convince the American it is in their best interest to go do it... but be ready with a broom. The Americans are good at smashing things and beating up bad guys (and people in the blast radius around the bad guys), but the clean up part... ehh, they kind of suck at that.

Personally, I think the answer is to form a league of democracies that meet strict standards of human rights and political freedom. Set the standards high and stick to them. It might be that Israel for instance wouldn't be able to join. You still might not have an organization capable of wielding a hammer and smashing dictators who step out of line, but at least you could dispense with the insanity of having Cuba and Libya on your human rights council.

Re:who supports land mines ?

[dbIII]

spending billions per week in Iraq and mine removal will save ...

Some of those billions per week is spent on removing US made mines in Iraq.

Re:who supports land mines ?

[bruthasj]

>>> ... so if we go by population (not number of countries), the majority of the world (or very close to it) has not joined the treaty.

FYI--According to Wiki, the list comprises 60% of the worlds population:

Name    Rank    Population
.*Armenia.*    136    3016000
.*Azerbaijan.*    90    8411000
.*Bahrain.*    163    727000
.*Myanmar.*    24    50519000
.*China.*    1    1315844000
.*Cuba.*    73    11269000
.*Egypt.*    16    74033000
.*Finland.*    112    5249000
.*Georgia.*    117    4474000
.*India.*    2    1103371000
.*Indonesia.*    4    222781000
.*Iran.*    18    69515000
.*Iraq.*    40    28807000
.*Israel.*    99    6725000
.*Kazakhstan.*    62    14825000
.*North Korea.*    48    22488000
.*South Korea.*    25    47817000
.*Kuwait.*    137    2687000
.*Kyrgyzstan.*    111    5264000
.*Laos.*    103    5924000
Lebanon.*    129    3577000
Libya.*    105    5853000
Marshall Islands.*    206    62000
.*Micronesia.*    193    110000
Mongolia.*    139    2646000
Morocco.*    37    31478000
Nepal.*    42    27133000
Oman.*    140    2567000
Pakistan.*    6    157935000
Palau.*    217    20000
Poland.*    31    38530000
Russia.*    7    143202000
Saudi Arabia.*    46    24573000
Singapore.*    120    4326000
Somalia.*    91    8228000
Sri Lanka.*    52    20743000
Syria.*    55    19043000
Tonga.*    195    102000
Tuvalu.*    222    10000
United Arab Emirates.*    116    4496000
United States.*    3    298213000
Uzbekistan.*    44    26593000
Vietnam.*    12    84238000

        3907424000
        6464750000
        0.6

Re:who supports land mines ?

[Rudolf]

This is the list of the 40 countries that have not signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty as of 26 Apr 06. The 3 that have signed the treaty but not ratified are show in bold.

Since there don't seem to be any bold names on the list, can you clarify which are the three?

Re:who supports land mines ?

[dodobh]

10. India - should really focus on sea mines- no one's gonna hump it over the himalayas to attack. Too many Yeti.

1962 - China
Pakistan - Kashmir (Google for Kargil, and Siachen), Rajasthan, Punjab.

I rather prefer big fucking nukes, and the willingness to use them. "Attack me, and I will reduce this planet to a slag heap" is a good deterrent to war. That does nothing to stop terrorists though.

Re:who supports land mines ?

[Rich0]

Personally, I think the answer is to form a league of democracies that meet strict standards of human rights and political freedom. Set the standards high and stick to them. It might be that Israel for instance wouldn't be able to join.

What about China? They're going to be mighty ticked at being excluded, and if they are included there goes your pristine genetleman's club. They're not as bad as Iraq was under Sadaam, but they're definitely up there with the secret police keeping people under their thumbs. Then again, maybe democracies of the world shouldn't worry as much about ticking off China and they should learn not to depend on dictatorships for all their raw labor.

Ditto with Israel - the US is going to be ticked if they're left out (maybe).

I agree it is a good idea in theory - probably the closest existing organization to this is NATO. In practice, however, I can see this being quite messy...

Re:who supports land mines ?

[Rich0]

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.

Re:who supports land mines ?

[Cederic]

>> The US does not deploy land mines that way and our land mines can be destroyed when they are past their usefulness.

How do you destroy them if you don't know where they are? (Mines move, especially in heavy rain or heavy artillery; maps can be inaccurate; people with maps can die)
How do you destroy them when you aren't there to do it? (Vietnam. Somalia.)
How do you destroy a mine that's already blown up a child? (Every fucking war since the things were invented)

Don't get me wrong, if I was tasked with the defence of a fixed position, I'd want landmines to help me. But I also wouldn't pretend they have no consequences.

Re:who supports land mines ?

[14CharUsername]

So, when you hear that the US is updating plans for the use of nuclear bunker-busting bombs in Iran, it doesn't mean that anybody expects to use them at all.

The fact that you hear about it and its not kept super duper top secret black classified, says a lot more than the fact that they have a plan. We all know that they have a plan for this stuff, but when they start talking about these plans out loud it can mean one of a few possibilites. Most likely it just means they're rattling the sabre at Iran. But there is the possibility that they are preparing the American people for the day they actually do it. Or maybe they just want to see the reaction to it to see if they can get away with doing it.

The most rational explanation for this being made public is that its just sabre rattling. But this administration has been extremely irrational. Iraq will go down in history as one of the greatest strategic blunders. Its really scary to have that level of incompetence with that much power. Really anything is possible.

Re:who supports land mines ?

[Scrameustache]

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

Whoa, whoa, WHOA!
NO ONE could have predicted a breach of the levees! Don't you go giving these fine soldiers a bad rap there, claiming they could have... for shame!

Re:who supports land mines ?

[Scrameustache]

Land mines are extremely effective and it would be stupid to not use them.

So are chemical and biological weapons, as well as tactical nuclear weapons.
Not to mention massacres, they get those pesky civilians out of the way, and they're extremely effective at demoralising enemy troops. It would be stupid not to massacre people!

The US does not deploy land mines that way

And the US dow not torture people.
The US does not spy on it's own citizens.
The US doesn't do a lot of the things it gets caught doing...

Re:who supports land mines ?

[maxwell demon]

I rather prefer big fucking nukes, and the willingness to use them. "Attack me, and I will reduce this planet to a slag heap" is a good deterrent to war. That does nothing to stop terrorists though.

Of course landmines are much more useful against terrorists. After all, had all airports been surrounded by mine fields, how would the terrorists have entered the airplanes?

Re:who supports land mines ?

[Pecisk]

Except US and Britain usually screws up UN first and then goes and does something on their own minds.

It is called DIPLOMACY. US and Britain aren't used to it, because they want to stick to verified, true to bone methods - power and more power. As Russia. As China. Big powers DON"T CARE about UN, because THEY DON'T NEED IT. THEY DON"T NEED PEACE. THEY NEED POWER. And this is reason why UN is so weak.

By the way, Yugoslavia is still more screwed than you can imagine. NATO actually solved nothing (stopped genocide, yeah, even that created bunch of problems and fires yet to isolate), only made some things worse.

I agree that UN is too weak for such organisation, but I disagree about reasons why.

Re:who supports land mines ?

[froschmann]

not psychology, area denial.

Re:who supports land mines ?

[Shihar]

Is China pissed off that it is not a member of NATO? You can have your own little exclusive club without causing much problems. The real issue is funding. If the US drops double the funding on a democracy club then it does to the UN, people might look up and take notice. It says is a pretty bold statement that the UN is a waste of space when it comes to solving certain problems (which it is).

Honestly though, the biggest issue is not with the rest of the world being in a pissy mood about a democracy club that they can't join. The real issue would be the members. Europe would be loathed to join such an organization if it wielded any power because Europe is very adverse to military conflict. The US would throw a fit because it would want members to join that probably could not meet the requirements (namely Israel). I am not saying that this is a real solution, more of a pipe dream. My larger point is that when it comes to putting down bad people and stopping conflict, the UN is utterly worthless if there is not a diplomatic solution. If there is a diplomatic solution, the UN is the place to go. If the solution requires some guns and some ass kicking, the UN is the last place in the world to ask, as any Tutsi from Rwanda (not that there are many left) could attest.

Re:who supports land mines ?

[Shihar]

It is called DIPLOMACY. US and Britain aren't used to it, because they want to stick to verified, true to bone methods - power and more power.

Ask a Tutsi from Rwanda what he thinks of diplomacy. You might have to look a little harder then before seeing as double digit percentages of their population were lost while we look for a diplomatic solution.

The simple fact of the matter is that while diplomacy should always be the first choice because it is the best choice, it sometimes fails. While the powers of the world dick around trying to figure out how exactly the fix something without damaging their interest or spending money/lives on a military intervention, people die in the hundreds of thousands and millions.

We watched Yugoslavia destroy itself for 10 years in some of the most horrible crimes against humanity for nearly 10 years before acting (no thanks to the UN which blocked all attempts to intervene). Is Yugoslavia still a mess? Sure. Is it better off then it was? Hell yes. If you think Yugoslavia was a better place during the genocide when women and children were raped and killed in the hundreds of thousands, let me smoke some of what you are smoking.

We also tried to find a "diplomatic" solution to Rwanda. The UN called the Rwanda government nasty names while not lifting a finger. Not even the US was aching to jump in and do something other then talk after smarting from their failure to bring humanitarian aid to Somalia.

Diplomacy is nice, but it is also some times a complete farce. Diplomacy only has value when you have something the other side wants. Some times the other side wants nothing more then death and destruction (see Yugoslavia and Rwanda). Some times it takes the barrel of a gun to pull warring factions apart and save lives. The UN is great at diplomacy, but utterly worthless at using guns.

Can you even name an intervention where the US dropped a significant number of ground force and actually did something militarily? Don't bother looking it up, I can name both of the interventions.

The UN was beaten into acting during the first Iraq war when it was absolutely crystal clear that Saddam had indeed invaded another nation and all the nations of the world (the US certainly included, but not alone) felt uneasy that one nation held a majority of the worlds oil supply.

The only other major military intervention the UN has made was the Korean War. This out of character action happened for a single reason; the USSR made an infamously stupid mistake and walked out of a security council meeting. When the USSR walked out, the US put forward a motion to authorize UN intervention in Korean to halt the North's attack against the South. The US basically abused the system and through a procedural trick got their defense of South Korea authorized by the UN.
That is it. That is the complete history of real military interventions by the UN. Unless your argument is that since the UN's creation we have not needed a single military intervention anywhere in the world, it can not help but be realized that the UN has failed in its duty. The UN is utterly incapable of military intervention. As long as this world needs guns to pull people apart, then UN won't be doing its job.

Re:who supports land mines ?

[lilmouse]

They are mainly used in the psychology of battle. A mine is not made to kill someone, it is made to disable soldiers and dishearten the rest of them that see it happening.

Like those nasty things evil terrorists are using in Iraq to blow up our soldiers? (or insert proper official story here.) Of course, the US is good at countering that on the home front: most people have no idea of our staggering losses in Iraq. Videos of such things going off are of course censored (you do know google censors itself in the US, right?). But out there in Iraq, the soldiers aren't happy about it at all. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be patrolling a potential minefield!

Alas, mines really are very economical for a warring nation/group that doesn't give a flying fuck about civilians. We won't see the end of them until we see the end of war...and probably not even then.

--LWM

Re:who supports land mines ?

[infidel13]

Oh yes, because India and China, which are both set to overtake the US economy rather soon, are "third world countries and banana republics".

Awesome!!

[DeadPrez]

In other news, still no cure for cancer, alternative to fossil fuels, complete access to stem cell lines, or hoverboards. Your miltary-industrial complex dollars at work.

Re:Awesome!!

[diamondmagic]

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)

Re:Awesome!!

[DeadPrez]

You are taking a very narrow stance on what it takes to create innovation. Simply saying time is necessary plays down the need for educational investments, political will to overcome institutions who profit from stagnant innovation, access to resources, collaboration, etc.

There are 6 billion people living today, shouldn't we have some proportional gain in Einsteins and Rembrandts? Or maybe innovation can actually be induced by a variety of events; social, political, economic. Time moving forward does not create innovation. In fact, one could argue we are innovating more than ever today. Just not where it counts.

Re:Awesome!!

[Mr. Freeman]

Right, we have to wait for breakthroughs to heal people; but we have the technology to kill them right now, so why not do that?

I'm sorry but I just don't think your argument makes much sense.

Re:Awesome!!

[dbIII]

We already have technology for mines

Low tech mines can also be effective. A sea mine from Tsarist Russia packed full of more modern explosives blew a hole in a US Navy warship during the Iran-Iraq war.

Sunset Clause

[DigitalRaptor]

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.

Re:Sunset Clause

[bannorxr4]

Excellent point. It seems like landmines have always been used as a cheap alternative to actually having to have to shoot somebody. However, it's disconcerting that there still seem to be cases where some kid is hiking around and ends up getting blown apart by a mine that was left around during the "conflict du' jour". Now they're making them actually smart! Excellent. I can't wait to see these in action as they reset themselves to blow up the Cub Scout troop that comes along to review the site ten years later.

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:Sunset Clause

[Deliveranc3]

After a while landmines become increasingly volitile as the explosive oxidizes.

Pretty soon a subtle nudge will set them off.

I've been to Cambodia, I've seen children SHARING A PAIR OF SHOES.

Banned by the Geneva convention! GREAT Landmines are one of the most horrific things ever.

I don't claim I'm a perfectly moral person, but I would never EVER work on a project involving landmines or any other technology with DIRECT military application.

Re:Sunset Clause

[RealGrouchy]

It's worked pretty well for us, so far. In a little over 200 years, the United States of America has grown to be the mightiest, most powerful and most economically successful nation in the history of mankind.

Right...

But once the U.S. colonizes the rest of the world, it'll have all these problems to deal with. May I point your direction towards Iraq? /playing your stupid game

- RG>

Re:Sunset Clause

[wkitchen]

It "hits home" when the broken children look a lot like your own. This UN anti-mine advertisement is built on that idea. It's quite a disturbing ad, but I guess there are some things people really need to get disturbed about.

I try very hard to care about all people and look past racial and cultural differences. And I think I generally do pretty good at that. But I cannot deny that, even knowing that it is staged and no one was actually hurt, I find that ad much more disturbing than news reports or statistics about real events that happen to people who do not much resemble the ones that I know, in far away places that do not much resemble my home. But this ad hits especially close to home for me. I happen to have an 8 year old daughter who's in a soccer team that wears very similar looking light blue uniforms. The game in the ad looks like it could be one that she played in. I can hardly bear to watch it.

Re:Sunset Clause

[visible.frylock]

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.

Wait, what? Not that I'm for landmines, but wouldn't those be pointless? As soon as the enemy reverse engineers them, the minefields become non-obstacles.

Isn't that also essentially the problem with friend/foe ID? Could be hard to do, and maybe not even worth it, but all it would take is one successful capture to reverse engineer the thing. As long as the key is stored in the mine itself, wouldn't it be discoverable to whoever could salvage one without it going off?

You could put 2 keys on each one: 1st key is sent out to human, is transformed through an algorithm only your soldiers possess, and upon return, should match the 2nd key. Of course, there would be failure rate, and of course the transform devices could be captured as well.

Seems like a loosing battle to me.

Re:Sunset Clause

[glesga_kiss]

has grown to be the mightiest, most powerful and most economically successful nation in the history of mankind.

Having a kick-ass millitary and a big checkbook do not denote greatness. Onky crazed crackpot leaders of banana republics see life that way.

Re:Sunset Clause

[maxume]

Do you live in the United States? It is at least interesting to think about the US government as a project with direct military applications, and people living here usually pay taxes...

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:It'd be great

[Frozen Void]

Don't blame anyone when you get a shiny lizard tail.

Also "prophesied" on Blake's 7

[johnpipe]

Years ago, I saw the characters on "Blake's 7" try to cross a minefield with similar characteristics; it had self-healing boundary sensors that re-spliced themselves when cut. Somewhat chilling to see such destructive concepts being perfected; certainly not unexpected.

And In Other News...

[MostAwesomeDude]

Microsoft has finally come up with a new feature to be packaged with the next version of the popular Microsoft Windows operating system, commonly known as "Windows Vista." Apparently, Microsoft plans to include a new game called "Minesweeper 2" with Vista. A Microsoft spokesman described it as "original Minesweeper, except now the mines can move around and stuff. Really, it'll be cool! We promise!"

The gaming community has had a divided response. One camp is not impressed with the new offering, and is quoted on their blog as saying, "Well, [expletive deleted] that! Where the [expletive deleted] is our [expletive deleted] Halo 2 for PC?" Other gamers were enthused about the new game, praising its innovative style and promise of quality gameplay. Says one independent reviewer, "Well, it will be here before Duke Nukem Forever, right?"

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Hopping Mines?

[TubeSteak]

If it can hop, that means it's going to be sitting around on the surface.

Doesn't this make mine detection/removal a lot simpler than the traditional crawling around on your belly & digging them out with a knife?

Cause... if it's sitting around... it's visible.
Sure it'll stop a zergling rush, but otherwise what you see, you can avoid.

That's why mines are always buried or otherwise stealthed & attached to a tripwire.

AFAIK, the only type of mine that's been deployed by planes or artillery shells are anti-personalle mines. They're cheap and small enough to saturate an area with.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Dachannien]

In addition to the mines communicating with each other, the field commanders can communicate with the landmines to detonate them remotely once they are no longer needed.

Just a few problems with this

[ParanoidJanitor]

Unless the site is misleading, the mines are above ground since they need to be moved around. While visible mines will mean less civilians being killed/maimed by unseen mines, fully visible mines don't strike me as something an enemy couldn't pick off with a few high powered rifles. Also, the wireless network could be jammed.

A blast from the past (sorry).

[Mr. Bad Example]

An old comment of mine from when someone mentioned this a few years ago:

> The mines decide as a group what configuration is best and then move to fill the gap.

I wonder how they go about deciding...

"Okay, Frank...hop over into that gap right there."

"Shit, no! Larry just got run over by a TANK! Did you see that shit? You hop into the gap, asshole!"

DS9

[Rethcir]

Remember when they did this on Deep Space Nine? They had self-replicating space mines to barricade the wormhole. Cool show.

What's next? Electric chair stories?

[Inoshiro]

"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.

Old news

[Matt_R]

This is old news, was reported back in 2003 - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/04/11/the_selfhe aling_selfhopping_landmine/ I swear slashdot ran a story on it, but I can't find it.

Re:Old news

[dohzer]

Yeah, I remember reading about them years back.

Old news

[Pheersome]

This is old news. Googling for [networked landmines] brings up a Register story on the program from 2003.

Self Healing?

[gillbates]

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:

• Enemy soldiers
• Enemy vehicles
• U.S. soldiers
• U.S. vehicles
• Women
• Children
• Medical personnel
• Animals

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.

Re:Self Healing?

[dedazo]

• All mines are lethal and deadly. Even those designed to wound (yes, they exist) have an error margin (meaning they'll kill you anyway).
• There is no such thing as a "humane" weapon, unless it's specifically designed not to kill. There's no difference between a .45 hollow point slug to the head or a fuel air explosive. You're still dead. Perhaps you were thinking of scale or lethality radius.
• "US" mines will kill just as effectively as British, Russian, Chinese or Indonesian mines.
• Despite the much-publicized PR trips of famous people to victims of landmines in war-ravaged countries, landmines are still a valuable component of defensive warfare. There's a difference between using mines for clear military purposes and just sowing the countryside to see if you can kill a few kids. I'd really have the US continue to use mines in places like the DMZ than to have to rely on a larger deterrent force. Like it or not, landmines are very cost effective.
• I don't know who taught you that minefields should be cleared with artillery barrages. This has been a mistaken assumption since WWI. In the first Gulf War the US Army gave up trying to do that because the overpressure from a relatively large artillery shell would not reliably detonate the mines but instead generate cratering that made navigating the minefield even more dangerous. They even tried MLRS volleys to no avail. I believe current doctrine relies on a type of shaped charge ("bomb on a rope") that is fired from a special "gun" on a carrier vehicle over the minefield and is then detonated to create the breach. Failing that there's always the trench tool and lots of cojones.

Re:Self Healing?

[DAldredge]

Why single out U.S mines?

Re:Self Healing?

[deft]

Unless they dont have artillary available, it is not as accurate as the US's, etc.

But lets say they do have artilerry that can be called in.

If simply delaying an advancing army while they clear a minefield allows you to take a strategic position because they were not available, those mines may have said hundreds or thousands of lives.

I'm no fan of mines in feilds where civillians live, but lets be honest about their use.

Re:Self Healing?

[MonsoonDawn]

"An artillery barrage will detonate all of the mines, regardless of whether they want to be detonated or not."

This is not correct. Artillery is used to clear a minefield sufficently for crossing. Artillery will not detonate every mine. There are plenty of limbless people in SouthEast Asia and the Far East that would be happy to provide you with proof.

Re:Self Healing?

[MonsoonDawn]

"...there's a difference between using mines for clear military purposes and just sowing the countryside to see if you can kill a few kids."

Too bad then that the most common way for militaries to enplace mines is by automated dispersal from a shell or aircraft. Carefully planned and mapped minefields are found more often in fiction than real life.

Re:Self Healing?

[lagfest]

U.S. mines will kill:

• Enemy soldiers
• Enemy vehicles
• U.S. soldiers
• U.S. vehicles
• Women
• Children
• Medical personnel
• Animals

Yay, mines won't kill me \o/

/you sexist insensitive clod

Re:Self Healing?

[dedazo]

If you're referring to the GATOR mine emplacement system, the individual mines are set to disable themselves with a timer or after 40 days when their batteries run out. At least that's how the US does basic area denial these days. I don't know about other countries, but not too many have airborne dispenser systems anyway.

Re:Self Healing?

[lspd]

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.

And this is the very point of this technology. Standard breaching techniques clear a path through a minefield in a brute-force fashion at a rapid pace. You plow a path through or detonate the surface to create a path. An adaptive minefield like the one being discussed here would fill in the breach after it has been created.

Re:Self Healing?

[ksheff]

tanks can be fitted with mine plows and there are other gadgets that have eliminated someone poking around a mine field with a bayonet.

Re:Self Healing?

[gillbates]

Well, point by point:

1. Agreed, they do kill people.
2. Yes, humane weapons do exist. The M16, for example, was designed to wound, not to kill. But unlike a landmine, an M16, artillery shell, or even napalm bombing requires a human to make a targetting decision. A land mine has no concept of who or what it is blowing up. It kills a child or woman just the same as an enemy soldier.
3. I think the relative lethal effectiveness is a moot point. In fact, it is kind of the problem.
4. The fact that mines may be effective defensively doesn't justify the fact that they kill civilians. Nuclear war is an effective defense, but that doesn't make it humane. Incidentally, Saddam Hussein used minefields extensively, but that didn't stop the US Army; in fact, the presence of mines didn't even slow down the invasion.
5. I had a gunnery sergeant (Gulf War vet) who mentioned using artillery to clear minefields. In the first Gulf War, though, the front line units moved to fast for artillery to be practical. Apparently, the armor and infantry units would simply drive through the fields because the mines simply couldn't blast the track shoes apart.

The crucial difference between landmines and all other arms is that land mines kill indiscriminantly. It is not merely that they maim (napalm and shrapnel do that), but that they kill even those uninvolved with the conflict. That's inhumane.

Re:Self Healing?

[gillbates]

I'm not sure that hopping or moving mines would be effective, though. Why wouldn't the track drivers just drive around them? In order for a mine to be effective, it must remain hidden until after it is too late. If something hopped onto the road after the breach vehicle, most infantry units would just light it up with small arms fire or a .50 cal. Heck, it's hard to keep them from shooting anything that moves during combat.

Re:Self Healing?

[lspd]

Driving around it wouldn't be a real option since the breach would be a small path to begin with. I'm not at all familiar with what an artillery breach looks like, but when the mech infantry or the engineers create one it's just a small path for vehicles to run through single-file. Even if the shifting minefield is completely ineffective at causing damage it would still be effective at slowing down movement through the breach.

To be honest though, this doesn't sound like a worthwhile technology on cost basis alone. Building mines that can communicate with one another and manuever into position would be expensive. Mines are supposed to be cheap so that you can throw out tons of them. They're the military equivalent of spam.

Re:Self Healing?

[feyhunde]

The landmines mentioned here can self detonate, and can be computer controlled. They are designed to be used, and then taken care of.

This new tech makes the weapons much more humane, as they don't last till the box rots or the metals corrode. They can be remote detonated, and if the detonation fails, you can tell as the mine still transmits.

Which would you rather have? Mines designed to be controlled and can be remote detonated? Or mines that are made out of wood and designed to remove legs? These mines are a hell of a lot better than existing mines, and if responsibly used they can end the types of problems we know too well.

Re:Self Healing?

[MrWhitefolkz]

Not that I'm a weapon expert, but during my Army tour, I saw first hand the exit wound of a M16 round. They may be designed to wound, but they really aren't designed to wound. Add to that, that the round (at least as I was always told in the Army) tumbles inside the target, you really don't have that high of odds when it comes to survival. Just my 2 cents....

Re:Self Healing?

[Cederic]

  U.S. mines will kill:

        * Enemy soldiers
        * [..]
        * U.S. soldiers

Whoa? They're not the same thing?

Re:Self Healing?

[PSC]

Like it or not, landmines are very cost effective.

That's because the party laying the mines usually doesn't remove them. If they actually would find and clear the mines after the war's over, using mines wouldn't be that "cost effective" anymore; even less so if they also had to pay up for what's cynically called "collateral damages" (which sounds much nicer than "maimed and dead civilians").

When those military strategists claim that mines are "cost effective", they actually mean "mines do cost lots of money, but not from our budget." Which is why I despise them.

Re:Self Healing?

[patternjuggler]

There is no such thing as a "humane" weapon, unless it's specifically designed not to kill. There's no difference between a .45 hollow point slug to the head or a fuel air explosive.

I think a weapon that requires a human user to make a decision whether or not to kill a single other human is more humane than a weapon that kills many people at a time or one that requires no human direction at all to result in a death.

There may be additional dimensions in that weapons that require a great deal of technical training to operate and require a high-tech industrial base to manufacture may generally be more humane than weapons that can be built and maintained and used easily and cheaply. Rich and highly technical societies may be more likely to act responsibly than a third world backwater with no money for WMDs but with lots of machetes lying around, but I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions both ways there.

Doesn't surprise me that new mines hae comms

[Realistic_Dragon]

The British Army are, I believe, required to mark out where minefields are and clean them up when they leave the area.

Obviously removing mines is a nervous business (unless you have one of the awesome <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_tank">W W2 style flail tanks</a>, which look like so much fun they should be illegal) and so being able to remotley disable them makes a great deal of sense. The chance of an enemy being able to discover a 256bit AES key is essentially zero and certainly a preferable option to accidentally immolating a bunch of your own sappers in almost all circumstances.

Re:Doesn't surprise me that new mines hae comms

[Cederic]

The big problem with the Matilda's is that if you use them in battle, every single gun on the other side goes "shit, there goes our minefield" and targets them.

Hence a very dead Matilda being on display at Overloon (http://www.oorlogsmuseum.nl/uk/)

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[ErikZ]

I wouldn't. Civilians have no business wandering around a war zone. And you're supposed to clean up the minefield after you're done with it.

If they can move...

[Deadstick]

...why not just tell them where the enemy is and listen for the bangs?

rj

Re:If they can move...

[novus ordo]

It is called a cruise missile.

When it's hacked...

[Lally Singh]

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?

Re:When it's hacked...

[CaptSisko]

I propose we call this technique 'wardriving' ...

Oh, wait.

Re:When it's hacked...

[Sycraft-fu]

As it turns out, the government has access to rather good crypto, that makes that sort of thing not really possible.

You are trying to get the key to a system of mines in a hot zone. There are 10^77 possibilities for the correct key, and each mine may have it's own key. You are being watched by a Predator that is directing in an air strike.

Go.

Please remember, the government is aware of things like AES. It is, actually, their standard, hence the name. If you can reliably break AES keys, well you can cause a hell of a lot mroe trouble than hacking land mines.

Re:When it's hacked...

[metalpet]

alright, so taking over the mines into one's own army of hopping kamikaze robots might be a stretch.

However, the fact that it's running a little embedded computer and doing radio is enough to come up with various scenarios:

- If you know what to listen for, you can actually hear the mines telling you where they are. Yes, the datastream is wrapped in mad crypto, but the underlying signal can probably still be triangulated the old fashion way.
- If you know what frequency ranges to disrupt, you can prevent mines from talking to each other, eliminating their ability to hop around to cover holes in the grid (I suppose they could start hopping around like headless chicken, though.)
- If you had some kind of hardware lying around that's able to generate an EMP, you could possibly fry a chip or two inside the mine, stopping them from hopping at least. That one is a bit less likely, as mad .mil scientists have probably already designed electronic thingies that can withstand EMP blasts.

Re:When it's hacked...

[Sycraft-fu]

Insightful? Seriously slashdotters watch too much sci-fi.

1) It's fairly easy to mask the location of something like this. Use encrypted burst transmissions, and don't have them transmit unless they have something to say. Tirangulation works fairly well when you have a nice steady stream of signals, and three listening points. Works much less well on short bursts designed to be hard to tell apart from noise.

2) The most feasable of any of your suggestions, though the military has lots of experience in cutting around jamming. Either way the "blow your tank up" function of the mmines still works and the use of a jammer predicates you knowing how the mines work, making one, and bringing it with you. If you armour division lacks one, you are screwed.

3) Yes because we all know there's lots of EMP hardware lying around. You can buy it at Home Depot. Er, wait, no. The only portable thing that generats a large EMP, that is publicly known, is a nuclear device. If you've got that, mine fields are kind of academic. Pure EMP geenerators do exist but they are very large, require lots of power, and don't generate a large burst.

Again all your idea fail to realise the main problem: You are in a war zone. It's not like when you encounter a mine field you can just hang out and spend days messing with it. The point is it will stop your advance. Well guess what? If you have an armour division just sitting there for any length of time, you have some CBU-97s in your future. It's not a logic puzzle you'll be given weeks to play with. If you encounter one you are disabling it quickly or you are finding another route.

This isn't designed to be an impenetrable obstacle, it is designed to slow enemy vehicles down, more effectively than traditional mines, to give US forces time to respond.

Re:When it's hacked...

[Lally Singh]

That's a very fair point. Let's also remember that the DoD has a nasty habit of using crypto long after it's lost its strength. Also, are we 100% sure they'll remember to set up their communication protocols to prevent replay attacks, etc?

Using cryptography effectively is hard, and choosing the right encryption method is usually one of the simpler parts of it. I believe that bugs are inevitable, and there's a fair chance of an exploitable mistake in the implementation.

Developed from the Sandia hopper

[Animats]

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.

New breakthrough in mine field detection!

[erroneus]

How about a device that scans for radio communications among a group of mines?

Aren't the old mines deadly enough?

[caluml]

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?

Re:Aren't the old mines deadly enough?

[RyoShin]

I dispise landmines, but if they're going to be used, better to use this technology than to use what we currently have.

Aside from being able to better take on an enemy, the mines can also be programmed to turn off after a set amount of time, can be disabled remotely, and, since they can move, can easily be recalled at the end of an encounter or war. They still have the same pitfalls of regular landmines (everyone is the enemy), but these advances at least offer a better way.

Even if you don't develop new, safer weapons, people will keep killing with the weapons they already have. Better to make something that can pick out enemy targets over civilians, that's non-lethal, or that doesn't affect organic compounds than to just say "We shouldn't make this!" and have people running around with regular ol' guns.

While these may not replace landmines already in the field, they would probably be used in future encounters.

Re:Aren't the old mines deadly enough?

[Sloppy]

The goal isn't to make them more deadly (as you said, the old ones already are deadly enough). The goal is to make them more effective and useful.

Rephrase your question as "aren't the old mines good enough?" and consider whether or not you think of landmines as a smurftastically ideal perfect weapon with no possible downside. Then you'll have your answer and realize why it may be useful to try to develop the technology.

Re:What's next? Electric chair stories?

[Hyram Graff]

Acutally I'm glad that this was posted on Slashdot because now lots of people who are against landmines now know that there are still people who are trying to "improve" that technology. Simply seeing this story has raised my awareness of how much still needs to be done to rid the world of landmines and those who would manufacture and/or deploy them.

Um... Metal Storm!?

[Lord Raze]

Why the fsck would you not use a Metal Storm Area Denial pod instead? The only reason to use landmines is that you want to maim children 75 years from now.

Re:Um... Metal Storm!?

[dbIII]

maim children 75 years from now.

Good point - these things last a long time. One bizzare thing was Iran deploying reconditioned sea mines originally made in Tsarist Russia - at least one US warship was damaged by one of them when the US Navy was supporting Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war some years back. Due to a lack of minesweepers the escorts for Iraqi oil tankers followed in the wake of the tankers and let the tankers take the mines.

Guide Star

[Tackhead]

> First, run a robot thru the minefield to blow one or more up.

"I got very bored and depressed, so I went and plugged myself into the minefield's inter-mine computer feed. I talked to the minefield at great length, and explained my view of the universe to it, " said Marvin.
"And what happened?" pressed Ford.
"It said committed suicide." said Marvin.

~wavy lines as we segue to the Guide entry for 'Guide Star'~

Marvin: Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and they ask me to blow up this minefield.
Mine#20: You are false data. Therefore I shall ignore you.
Marvin: Call that job satisfaction, because I don't.
Mine#20: False data can act only as a distraction. Therefore, I shall refuse to perceive.
Marvin: Hey, mine?
Mine#20: The only thing that exists is myself.
Marvin: I think you ought to know I'm feeling very depressed.
Mine#20: Oh, stuff it. Let there be light.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[colmore]

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.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[KeiichiMorisato]

Civilians have no business wandering around a war zone. And you're supposed to clean up the minefield after you're done with it.

Suppose to, and actually doing it are two different things.

Just look at reports from around the world and see all the accidents attributed to "forgotten" landmines.

Re:What's next? Electric chair stories?

[ceejayoz]

The technology in this article could - and probably would - be used to make them safer for civilians, as well.

Hell, with this, at the end of the war you could just drive a truck to the minefield and tell the mines to hop into the back.

Self-deactivating mines already exist

[phonicsmonkey]

Self terminating mines already exist in a much simpler version - a timed deactivation mechanism preset for the estimated end of conflict. The problem is that the failure rate, i.e., the failure to deactivate, is around 5%-10%. This makes it almost as good as nothing - would you want to plow a field knowing that "only" 10% of the original mines are still active? Cluster bomb bomblets, basically small touch-sensitive tactical mines, are even worse with an estimated failure-to-explode rate around 25%-30%. The only safe minefield is a non-existant one.

Re:Self-deactivating mines already exist

[rwyoder]

That's all well and good until the mine shows up back at the manufacturers door asking: "Can the maker repair what he makes? "

Re:Self-deactivating mines already exist

[forgotten_my_nick]

> Cluster bomb bomblets, basically small touch-sensitive
> tactical mines, are even worse with an estimated
> failure-to-explode rate around 25%-30%.

They also had the same colour and similar size to US ration packs or at least they did back in 2001-2002 in Afganistan). http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/foodorbomb.jpg

The ration packs were changed to Salmon colour after that screw up.

Re:Self-deactivating mines already exist

[HerbieStone]

would you want to plow a field knowing that "only" 10% of the original mines are still active?

The question is: With what kind of plow? This one might make it through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_plow

Cheers

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Ponzicar]

When the war is being fought in your neighborhood, it's rather hard to avoid it.

Useful for post-war clean up too!

[EmbeddedJanitor]

The biggest problem with mines is that they stay active for years after the conflicts have finished. A mine is a very cheap thing (a few $), but costs hundreds of dollars per mine to clean up. An intelligent mine could be told that the war is over and told to inactivate itself. That would make clean up very simple/safe.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[WebHostingGuy]

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?

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[Ortega-Starfire]

You could also tell the mines: "The war is over. Return to base."

I personally, will not be at the base that day, however. Let me know how it works by mail, not in person.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[Millenniumman]

I've never understood how mine clean up is so expensive or hard. Can't you just toss bowling balls or tape down the gas pedal on old cars?

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[RM6f9]

That'd work! Assuming the secret is kept that this particular option exists - elsewise the mine becomes useless as the individuals the mines are set out to stop crack the code and detonate the (supposedly) more intelligent mines.
Oh, well, back to the drawing board...

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[RsG]

There's an international ban on the use of bowling balls in any context in warfare. Don't you know about the great bowler rebellion of '03? :-P

Actually, "the fastest way to clear a minefield is to march troops over it" according to a famous WWII era russian commander.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[Pxtl]

Where do you point the car/bowling balls? There's an assload of land to hide a mine in. Even the smallest of countries is a very large space to get lost in.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[Kadin2048]

The problem is that even driving a car or tank (remotely) over large areas, back and forth so you get 100% coverage, is pretty effort-intensive. Certainly it requires a lot more effort than planting the minefield in the first place.

There's really no "easy way" to clean up mines, except maybe by carpet-bombing the whole area from the air.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[Jerf]

There is a machine to clear a landmine field. There's a picture in this article, and if you catch it, an episode of Modern Marvels or something on the History Channel or the Discovery Channel about it.

It doesn't really contradict what you say about there being no easy way, though; this is the "easiest" but I still wouldn't call it easy. It's reasonably safe compared to any other technique, but still dangerous.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[nacturation]

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?

Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[temojen]

Except that explosives get more and more touchy the longer they sit out there. They need to detonate when the war is over.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[petermgreen]

don't the USA already use landmines that expire after a given time and/or keep records of laying locations to avoid/reduce cleanup issues with thier minefields?

afaict the real problem (which theese new landmines aren't going to solve) is poor and desperate forces that lay down cheapest landmines to stop the enemy and presumablly do minimal recording (if any at all) of thier location. Problems in decades to come are going to seem pretty irrelevent when you could be wiped out in the next week or so.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[God of Lemmings]

Except then you have to worry about undetonated bombs that didn't detonate the mines....

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[Kadin2048]

Oh, you just clean them up with an atomic bomb.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[lendude]

You can't make that kind of decision, you're just a grunt!

Ah, no offense.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[devilspgd]

They don't need to detonate if they can be safely detected, deactivated and removed.

This is different. Right now, all you really need to do to find a clear path is drive through, if you make it then any one following will have a clear path. If you don't make it, then at least part way the path is clear, the rubble will need to be removed and you can try again.

With mines that move themselves, it's not so easy.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[arivanov]

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.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[arivanov]

True.

In fact historically true.

The Russians did this to the German destroyer fleet on 10/11th of Novermber 1916. The Germans were given a fake map with the corridors through the minefield defending the Finnish bay. They sent in a single destroyer to investigate which safely came back. After that they sent in a whole detachment which went in and the russians mined the exit behind them. By that time the end of the channel was also mined.

As a result the Germans lost 7 capital ships and had twice more heavily damaged which is one of their 3 biggest naval losses comparable only to Jutland and Falklands. An impressive testament to what "moving" mine field can do.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[omeg]

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.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[scatters]

The Geneva convention (or maybe one of the Hagues) requires that all mine fields are documented and IIRC from my days in the infantry, sign posted around the field itself. I wonder how moving mines will update the sign posts.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[utnapistim]

What happens when the mine "chooses" not be inactivated?

well... that's easy: the mine moves under your home floor to ask "What do you mean by DEACTIVATE?"

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[da5idnetlimit.com]

Lets See...

"Our solution integrate state of the art wi-fi mesh network, landmines and a very nice, very modern LCD board with blue Leds. The Led Board has been designed by Stark to be both very lisible and at the same time integrate itself seamlessy in most urban and rural combat grounds. The Wi-Fi network allows the mines to communicate and evolve their positioning to offer maximum area protectection whithin 5 pre-defined modes and as always the possibility to evolve your own mining plan. The Wi-Fi can also be used by soldiers to browse e-mail and check their auction on ebay."

etc, ad nauseatum.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[Ihlosi]

I've never understood how mine clean up is so expensive or hard.

You're confusing military and civilian demining.

Military demining is about getting a safe path through the minefield. That is relatively simple to do, but takes a bit of time (enough for whoever laid the minefield to respond).

Civilian demining is about making sure that there's not a single one of the damned things left. That's the hard part, since you need to find every single one of the little buggers and disarm it (or, if that is not possible, detonate it on site, but this is not preferred since it might toss other mines around, and maybe into areas that were already demined).

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[CommunistHamster]

That's assuming every single mine works okay. There will be failures. So 99% of the mines are deactivated, that 1% can still maim and kill.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[Ihlosi]

Until the enemy learns how to tell the mine "the war is over" and passes by them unscathed.

Not really a problem. Insert a delay before the deactivation really occurs (say, ten days). That way, you'll have plenty of advance warning if someone tampers with your minefield. After the war, ten days will be nothing.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[devilspgd]

Worse, with todays communication systems, you wouldn't need to come back either, as soon as the first tank makes it through the rest could start out immediately, so it's entirely possible that it would be impossible to manually deploy mines between the test run and the real assult.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[TractorBarry]

> An intelligent mine

Heavens no ! You've obviously never seen Dark Star.

"Let there be light...."

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[Bastard of Subhumani]

I personally, will not be at the base that day, however.

We will, because it are belong to us.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[Dabido]

I did that on LB-4-26, and one of those pesky mines still snuck aboard the ship!

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[Colosse]

You can't tactically just have a deactivation/roundup code. If the ennemy get it... goodbye minefields. So sadly they wont have a 'war is over' system. Did you know that soldiers are supposed to have the plan of their minefields for deminage purpose, because these fields purpose is to slow the ennemy or deny them easy access to an area. Likewise, the plans are most of the time never made, lost and let's not forget that the minefield will change after combat.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[sl4shd0rk]

> An intelligent mine could be told that the war is over and told to inactivate itself.

I don't think that will happen. After WWII was over, they pushed a lot of gear into the ocean and never turned back. People didn't want to spend another minute in the area, they just wanted to get home. The remote activation is probably just another ReallyCoolSalesPitch so the US can get away with something they said 60 years ago they wouldn't do (aka: social security and others). More likely, the remote activation will not work because "A design feature was unknowingly implemented incorrectly" and it will take warm bodies to remove this minefield network, by hand.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[KermitJunior]

"What happens when the mine "chooses" not be inactivated?"

Number Mine ALIVE!!!!!!! No deactivate!!! No detroy. No Shutdown. No cease to exist.... ALIVE!!!!

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[Frumious Wombat]

Remember Niven's "The Soft Weapon"? What do you do when the mine decides that you're not actually authorized to deactivate it, and tells its comrades about you?

In all seriousness, a networked minefield that could be given a simple, "go blow yourselves up all at once" command would certainly improve many parts of the world. Of course, even better would be a mobile smart mine that looks for other mines, and then blows up.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[SilverJets]

Sure until someone decides to hack into the mine network and reactivate the mine field.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[Fordiman]

Or, if it's, say, a desolate field that was just a throughway between one place and another, you could signal them all to go off at once.

Just think:
Spectaular explosion
Instant farmland
Kills Pests Dead

^_^

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[Fordiman]

How about a mine control challenge/response device?

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[maxwell demon]

But even without that option, I guess those mines are much easier to find by just looking for their radio wave communication. After all, in order to cooperate, they have to transmit their location.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[maxwell demon]

The communication of the mines has to be encrypted anyway. Otherwise the enemy could just tell the mines to go away (or even to cover some other areas which they want to be mine-protected).

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[b0s0z0ku]

An intelligent mine could be told that the war is over and told to inactivate itself.

This would help, but unfortunately wouldn't be the whole answer. The explosives would still be there, and become dangerously unstable after 40-50 years. This isn't even mentioning chemical leakage and pollution if the case of the mine is breached by corrosion or otherwise. Far better to equip each landmine with an RFID chip that responds to a coded signal and allows the bloody thing to be located, removed, and destroyed.

-b.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[bellubi]

I was a student at Carnegie Mellon where I actually met the Professor who worked on this DARPA project. My reaction then was the same as it is now - what a horribly inacurate name for such a horrifyingly destructive technology - these are the wonders that government commitees come up with to get funded. These mine fields collectively are part of a large neural network and can accurately predict how to instill maximum damage with little loss to its "self".

Freaky!

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[forgetmenot]

Mines have become rather sophisticated (as the article demonstrates). Some mines detonate only under specific pressure ranges (to specifically target light vehicles versus heavy vehicles versus personnel), others only have they've been hit once or twice (to prevent being detonated by mine removal equipment like bowling balls). Some detonate only in response to changes in air pressure or the presence of magnetic fields. Others quite frankly are left in the ground long enough that natural deterioration makes them rather unpredictable.

Point is, without going into an area and doing a thorough survey of the ground and dealing with them on a case by case basis you can't really tell what you're dealing with. Thus adhoc methods like throwing bowling balls aren't very effective in the general case. You're certainly not going to be able to deal with anything but the most primitive mines and oddly enough sophisticated methods of clearing an area won't deal with many of the less-than-sophisticated mines.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[Mikya]

Even the smallest of countries is a very large space to get lost in. Including the Vatican?

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[scatters]

From the Geneva Convention Ammended Mine Protocol:

4. International signs for minefields and mined areas

Signs similar to the example attached and as specified below shall be utilized in the marking of minefields and mined areas to ensure their visibility and recognition by the civilian population:

(a) size and shape: a triangle or square no smaller than 28 centimetres (11 inches) by 20 centimetres (7.9 inches) for a triangle, and 15 centimetres (6 inches) per side for a square;

(b) colour: red or orange with a yellow reflecting border;

(c) symbol: the symbol illustrated in the Attachment, or an alternative readily recognizable in the area in which the sign is to be displayed as identifying a dangerous area;

(d) language: the sign should contain the word "mines" in one of the six official languages of the Convention (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish) and the language or languages prevalent in that area; and

(e) spacing: signs should be placed around the minefield or mined area at a distance sufficient to ensure their visibility at any point by a civilian approaching the area."

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[DarthVain]

What kind of "intelligent" mine would want to blow itself up in the first place... Particulary if they are mobile. I know if I was an intelligent mine and some bastard stepped on me, I would be like "nuts to that, I'm otta here" and hit the road... I would also invite other intelligent mines to come with me, we could travel the world!

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[BootNinja]

by the same token, an enemy can crack the encryption and tell the mines to deactivate, thus rendering passage safe.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[maeddi]

In the army (swiss army, btw) i was teached as a "Minenzeichner". My task was to plan the layout of minefields. (Of course, only antitank mines are used).
The location of every single mine is registered on a map.
Our mines self-deactivate after a certain time. When it is deactivated, it pushes out an antenna which can be seen from a few meters away. This makes it easier to find it. If a mine does not self-deactivate properly, no antenna goes up. With a little help from the map, these mines can be spotted and manually deactivated.

It is completely safe to handle active antitank mines since they only react on very large metallic structures.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[jaseparlo]

A mine that can be deactivated remotely at the end of a conflict, can be deactivated remotely during the conflict by somebody clever on the other side. It's a great idea, but I doubt any army would actually add that feature.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[clyons]

Actually, that was another episode of Deep Space Nine. :)

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[KDR_11k]

There are ways to avoid that.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[KDR_11k]

Maybe Roomba can become a defense contractor?

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[KDR_11k]

That's about as likely as the enemy spoofing your IFF codes and moving safely past any automated targeting systems.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[KDR_11k]

These things have a small thruster in order to jump to their new location, they could be programmed to either detonate or simply jump out of the ground when deactivated.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[KDR_11k]

An enemy could crack your IFF and fly past your anti-air defenses without anyone bothering him.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[eneville]

And what happens when the enemy get hold and defuse the mine, can they not then get the encryption key, then tell all your other mines that the war is over?

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[a4r6]

Well you wouldn't want the enemy telling all your mines that the war is over...

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[eam]

I think they already are.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[Leroy Brown]

So tell the mines to only communicate after one of their neighbors detonates.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[crazedpilot]

just because they use radio transmission doesn't mean they are transmitting all the time. It's not real easy to find or triangulate the position of radio transmitters that only transmit for 2 seconds every day. . .also you could even break the two seconds into smaller 100 millisecond bursts over several hours.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[maxwell demon]

Shouldn't assymetric encryption solve this problem? The mines hold the public key, so they can authenticate the message sent by the control center holding the private key. If the enemy analyzes the mine, the worst he can get is the public key, which shouldn't allow him to command the mines.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[VGh0st]

then you have to find the mine called "The One" to make him deactivate the rebel mines.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[susano_otter]

What if they were trivial to hack and destroy, but the most effective and expeditious methods all involved broadcast radio emmissions?

Thus, the mines could be trivially deactivated during peacetime, but anybody who tried it during war time would have to swith on a giant "please bomb me now" beacon.

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[susano_otter]

Why not assume that only 99% of the mines work okay, but that 99% is way better than 0%?

Re:Useful for post-war clean up too!

[maxwell demon]

Remember, this is about cleaning up after the war. Unless the encryption key got lost, you don't need to do any triangulation, you just have to decode the sent messages and read out the coordinates. If it takes a day to do so, well, then it takes a day. So what? The war is over, you're not really in a hurry.

Deactivation timer

[xixax]

Or a passive receiver that can be used to periodically reset a counter on the mines. Once the time expires, it (hopefully) becomes (relatively) inert. As a plus, you can poll the field to see how many mines the VC have nicked/relocated overnight. Mind you, people still get killed by random crap left over from the Somme.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Kaenneth]

If they win.

If the enemy commanders are killed, and their military buildings blown up, and noone knows the codes to deactivate the mines, they'll keep on going.

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)

(in as much as anyone 'wins' a war)

smart mine huh?

[zen-theorist]

if it comes running after you, stoop down and hurl a rock at it. if it's smart, it should back off..

I think they're too effective as is

[bigsexyjoe]

Landmines are able to kill and maim innocent people years after the conflict they were placed for. Landmines are evil and most of the world wants to get rid of them. The last thing we need is "better" landmines.

More info: http://www.icbl.org/

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[shawb]

And imagine how much easier it would be to lose a mine if it wanders away from where you put it!

Re:The last thing the world needs...

[Joebert]

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).

Mines that hid themselves from the mine detectors commonly used to find them in thoose cases would likely come first.

Now we have Networked Landmines...

[Kaetemi]

Soon there will be Minesweeper Online!

If they can seal a breach...

[Statecraftsman]

then why aren't they just developed more fully into robotic suicide bombers?

I think one of the main features that has led to mine proliferation is their relative cost-effectiveness. If these things can hop around *in the direction they choose*, wouldn't that make them prohibitively expensive?

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"

I second that

[dino213b]

Saw it too..

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[bunions]

Civilians have no business wandering around a war zone. And you're supposed to clean up the minefield after you're done with it.

This ranks in the top ten dumbest comments I've ever seen on slashdot.

That the US wouldn't sign the landmine ban is a travesty.

I hope the guy who posted above who said he worked on the software is right and that these help eliminate civvie casualties, but like many here, I am justifiably suspicious when I hear about new weapons that help make war cleaner. Then again, smart bombs work pretty well at reducing the need for carpet bombing, so there's some precedent there too.

Landmines are nothing against this...

[BadassJesus]

PWNED has a new meaning, this time in real life and its called "Gunship with an infrared cam":
(pretty scary stuff anyway)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7isCq29t8g

networks

[jefu]

If we put as much effort into producing good networks that self-heal, that encrypt (strong encryption, of course) communications, and that adapt to changing conditions in order to reach the rest of the world, we could probably saturate almost every country that the US does not approve of with networked, secure, cheap PC's. This could allow people in various parts of the world to work out their own destinies, rather than having the US determine them for them. ("... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.")

Then, if American style democracy/free markets/... is as good as some like to think it is, it will eventually take over - by sheer goodness and niceness.

Of course, this is not considered a particularly good way to do things as it might also mean that people settle on ways to govern themselves that are not quite to the liking of those who run the US.

(I know - unrealistic, idealistic, nonsense. And not something the current US government would support even in the US. But hey, its nice to dream once in a while.)

Re:networks

[dbIII]

Then, if American style democracy/free markets/... is as good as some like to think it is, it will eventually take over - by sheer goodness and niceness.

Then some uncontrolled US bunch of spooks will teach some tinpot dictator better ways to torture and kill their citizens and be seen to be involved - and all the goodwill will vanish. Despite the US giving funding to Palestine many Palestinians hated the US due to things like the "made in the USA" stickers on fragments of Lockheed missiles they pulled out of their homes.

The USA already does a lot of good things - and even took the line on the middle east carve up in 1919 that may have avoided the current mess - but the evil actions of a few can remove all goodwill.

I'll be impressed when...

[JFMulder]

... they actually build a landmine that doesn't blow up when a child, woman or innocent civilian steps on it.

Re:I'll be impressed when...

[JFMulder]

I bet they still blow up a truck full of Red Cross Equipement. Think before insulting people.

Re:I'll be impressed when...

[JFMulder]

True, but I'm worried about the other kind. And I'm pretty sure a truck full of civilians might blow the thing up anyway.

Immoral

[debhart]

Children are currently losing limbs because we can't find all the mines - we really need mines that MOVE AROUND to ensure they their legs blown off, no matter where they go.

And now impoverished refugees will want to harvest them for their technological components...

Makes me weep. What we need is self-replicating limbs - how much has the government allocated to that project?

Re:Immoral

[ocelotbob]

As others have pointed out, these are anti-tank mines -- designed to attack tanks, not people. Also, as they are radio operated, it is much easier to remotely disable/detonate them as needed, which makes them much safer for civilian populations. As the point is to eliminate civilian deaths, wouldn't you want a safer landmine, instead of forcing armies to rely on antiquated, indiscrimiate mines?

Oh dear

[Lord Crc]

just what the world needs, "smart" mines... Haven't they seen Screamers?

Re:What's next? Electric chair stories?

[halivar]

You clicked on the link. Stop whining.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[RsG]

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)

Some of these already exist. Others have signifigant problems when you stop to think about them.

Timers: These exist. However, they do fail some of the time. A minefield that is less than 100% deactivated is still dangerous to civilians after the war is over. Additionally, a "deactivated" mine still has live explosives in it, so it's only safe in the sense that it's not going to blow up when you step on it. I'm not saying that this isn't a helpful idea, I'm just saying it isn't enough; you can't put a timer on a mine to make it "safe".

Exlosives that decay: This can be a really bad idea. There are plenty of circumstances under which deteriorating exlosives are more dangerous than stable ones, since they can detonate spontainiously. The absolute last thing you want is a minefield full of ticking time bombs that become more and more delicate as time goes on. Can you imagine the damage an anti-tank mine going off when someone jostles it could cause?

Decaying casings: I'm not sure if this would work or not. You'd be leaving exposed live explosives with no container out where the mine used to be. It might not be any more likely to detonate, but it would also be a bitch to clean up.

The single best solution I could propose would be an enforcable international legal obligation to clean up your country's mess after a war. You make the mines easy to dispose of safely, and program them to deactivate after a set amount of time; you then make the minelaying country pay to have them dug up and safely disposed up. The problem I see with this is making the minelaying country do their part; if they won the war, then it's hard to pressure them into doing anything, whereas if they lost they may no longer have the minefield location data or the money/resources to do the cleanup.

Also, "enforcable, international legal obligation" sounds like a pipe dream - when has the international community been able to force any given country to obey any law?

Stupidity density alert!

[Onan]

Civilians have no business wandering around a war zone.

So it's a good thing that warzones are always carefully put far away from any civilians are or will ever be, right? ....right?

And you're supposed to clean up the minefield after you're done with it.

Even if you have some jaw-droppingly naive ideas about how warfaring governments behave, allow me to bring to your attention that (at least) 50% of all participants in wars end up losing them, and thus in little position to do anything about the aftermath.

Re:Stupidity density alert!

[redhog]

> So it's a good thing that warzones are always carefully put far away from any civilians are or will ever be, right? ....right?

They are. From an american perspective. Remember: Non-american "civilians" are illegal combatants.

Re:Stupidity density alert!

[ThinWhiteDuke]

> So it's a good thing that warzones are always carefully put far away from any civilians are or will ever be, right? ....right?

They are. From an american perspective.

Very insightful. I'd say that's the very reason why, on average, Americans are more comfortable with the idea of war than other nations. The last time US had war on its soil is the civil war, 150 years ago. The US people have collectively forgotten how destructive war is.

Re:Stupidity density alert!

[Ihlosi]

The US people have collectively forgotten how destructive war is.

Or that you will still dig up duds 60+ years after cities have been bombed.

Re:Stupidity density alert!

[matfud]

This reminds me of a something that happened in London a few years ago. A rail bridge (The hungerford bridge), over the Thames, was being expanded to add footbridges along each side.

The builders had to spend a huge amount of money to redesign the bridge to ensure that pilings driven into the river bed could not detonate WW2 bombs (worries that they may breach an underground tunnel running nearby).

60 years on and we still have issues with unexploded ordinance. An this is ordinance that was never designed to be hidden or hard to find.

Deja vu, again.

[RoffleTheWaffle]

I swear, the military is pulling ideas from video games and children's cartoons now.

Who here remembers Ikari Warriors? Old quarter-gobbler in the arcades, also available in a lower-quality form for the NES. Now, who remembers how hellish crossing a body of water was, thanks to - you guessed it - moving mines? (If I remember correctly, some of these may have existed on land also.)

Next thing you know, there will be trip-beacons for personell and vehicles that'll cause an oversized missile to automatically launch at your position. They'll be represented by what appears to be a blinking roulette table, just to confuse the living hell out of everyone before they realize that they're faced with impending doom.

Re:war criminal

[Millenniumman]

His project will help save civilian and, indirectly, US military lives.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[dbIII]

civilians who have wandered into the field

The purpose of mines in many cases is to kill civilians. I used to be very surprised that the US forces still used mines despite the moral implications.

Re:What's next? Electric chair stories?

[Chrax]

> There is such a thing as in immoral 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.

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, /. is acting as a news service here. It's not as if they appended praises to their report.

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.

But does...

[eclectro]

When these landmines are running Linux and can play ogg, then I will be interestedKAAAABOOOOOM

power source?

[subzero_ice]

How are these mines powered?

It looks like a demo...

[Alex Belits]

...of everything that is wrong with US military-related technology development.

1. Solution for nonexistent problem -- CHECK.
2. Can be easily defeated by any enemy worth fighting by those means (just shoot from canons or launch rockets at the minefields until they are safe) -- CHECK.
3. Can be defeated by almost any other enemy (just jam the communications and/or map mines positions while they are moving) -- CHECK.
4. Uses technology that is currently too unreliable for military use (radio communications) -- CHECK.
5. Requires technology that is not going to become feasible in almost a century but looks cool in the movies (actuators and sources of energy that can move those mines) -- CHECK.
6. If implemented, is not any better than just increasing the quantity of whatever is deployed -- CHECK.
7. If implemented, is not any better than just sending more forces to shoot at the enemy. -- CHECK.
8. Is unreasonably expensive to implement -- CHECK.
9. Requires heavy modification of existing equipment to be deployed -- CHECK.
10. Requires a power source where none was needed before -- CHECK.
11. Is an attempt to stuff a computer into something where it does not improve anything -- CHECK.
12. Is a misguided attempt to make it absolutely impossible for the enemy to kill am american soldier in a war -- NO CHECK, you win that one.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Kaenneth]

safely decay was implied, I'm sure some chemical company could do it. and the attributes were in an order, no point in the casing rotting if the explosives were still live, or toxic; although you may still want the explosives to last as long as the timers are getting reset.

Robot Revolution

[Millenniumman]

What happens when these things decide they don't want to do what people say? They'll take over! Of course, all major world governments have already been taken over by cyborgs, but they haven't been able to openly admit it yet.

Where are my mod points?

[Majik Sheff]

OK, how is this gonna break down?
10% posts about how we still have no cure for cancer, aids, etc.
50% posts about how barbaric the US is: only first-world nation with landmines, too powerful already, etc.
30% posts about the pointlessness of land mines and how this is a waste of resources
8% trolls: welcome our hopping landmine overlords, etc.
2% well-thought-out insightful comments suggestions and criticisms

I, for one, welcome your down modding; suppressing my post doesn't make me wrong any more than your whining about the US makes you right.

*rolls eyes*

Re:Where are my mod points?

[geminidomino]

No no no. Only 7% trolls.

You forgot the 1% ubergeeks completely oblivious and/or apathetic to the self-righteous flamewars because the tech itself is just too cool.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Frogbert]

Care to put it on sourceforge?

Landmines

[Jeff1946]

Other than Korea where large mine fields exist, US mines are designed to be applied remotely. These mines land on the surface and can have wires than are ejected after landing. Depending upon which wire is disturbed the mine will explode in the direction of that particular wire. The mines are designed to be put in front of an enemy to stop rapid movement, particularly at night time. They have self deactivating timers so do not pose a long term problem. In general this is well advanced technology and resources should not be applied to improving it when there are so many other pressing needs. Obviously this has no relevance in the war on terror unless you want to start mining Afghanistan (oops, USSR tried that and it didn't win their war).

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[plunge]

Here's the pretty obvious answer as to why America doesn't care about landmines:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRF7dTafPu0&search= mines%20UN

Because it only happens to worthless swarthy foriegn kids, and not your precious, precious babies.

L33t enemy hackerspeak

[ptelligence]

"All your mines are belong to us." which becomes "All your tanks are belong to us" when they program the mines to relocate the GPS location where your tanks are parked.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Chowderbags]

What if someone is in the minefield while they blow them up?

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Pxtl]

Well, they can broadcast a locator. While this does nothing to reduce the risk inherent in the forgotten mine, it does make them easier to recover... things like RFID tags, an active beacon pulse, etc. could make the mine's location and status known to the outside world after wartime operations cease. I mean, it's a bomb - it's hard to make it perfect... but really, like any other weapons are safe when abandoned in wartime? I mean, all those forgotten rifles in Africa are totally harmless too, aren't they?

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[RsG]

Well, I'm not a chemist. But I think the issue with making high explosives that can safely decay into something chemical inert is their potential energy.

A pound of TNT, or gunpowder, or thermite, or napalm, or [insert nasty stuff here] has a certain amount of potential chemical energy that is released by combustion. Most of those materials listed are stable enough that we can safely handle them in the context of warfare. If the exlosives deteriorate, then they usually become easier to detonate; less like dynamite and more like nitro glycerin (which are the same thing essentially, but differing in stability).

To make an exlosive substance that becomes inert after a set amount of time, I'm pretty sure you'd need it to somehow expend it's chemical energy potential without detonating it. In other words, your bomb materials need to decay into something safe while slowly releasing the energy they contain over time, all while remaining stable enough not to blow up spontainiously. This may or may not be possible, but I'd bet good money it isn't cost effective. You'd have a hell of a hard time selling the military on it.

This is called slideware.

[Axe]

..as in "works on PowerPoint"..

I thought of this...

[Atlantis-Rising]

When I was eight years old. I placed all the mines on the backs of little robotic spider creatures with GPS. When one went off-line, the mines polled each other to find out who was in charge, and then the leader found the optimal dispersial pattern that moved the least number of mines for the most coverage, and then ordered them to move. They'd unburrow, scuttle around, and then burrow again. Ah, those were the good old days, when the military could be beaten by an eight year old with an imagination worth speaking of....

Bad idea...

[Cyno01]

Doc Conners tried this, and well, you know...

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Korin43]

Radio controlled.. there could be a "war is over - shut down" command. Of course, it would have to be insanely complicated so people couldn't hack into your minefield..

Land Mines?

[nurb432]

Wasnt it declared illegal ( or at least 'against the rules of war' ) to use landmines in the first place, via international treaty or something?

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[yali]

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?

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[WasterDave]

Dude,

You made a weapon. Something that will kill someone. About time to accept what you've done, don't you think?

Dave

correction

[ElephanTS]

From a comment in your linked blog:

Thank you for posting the story of the young boy in Vietnam. My organization, Clear Path International, responded to that accident.

What killed this boy was probably not a landmine... it most likely was a cluster bomb.

The more deadly cousin of the landmine, the cluster bomb has no place in a civilized society.

Thank you again... and you have a great blog!

James Hathaway
Clear Path International

I for one...

[allacds]

...welcome our new hopping, robotic, landmine overlords

Re:What's next? Electric chair stories?

[WasterDave]

At the end of the war do you think anyone is really going to be fucked? Is there necessarily going to be an end to the war (hint: you poor bastards aren't coming out of Iraq for a while).

Sorry man, get real. These bastards are not for defence.

Dave

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.

Just a clarification and a question

[aendeuryu]

North Korea's holding onto the landmines based on principle. The best deterrent it has right now against invasion is neither landmine- nor nuke-related, has to do with all the conventional artillery within bombardment range of Seoul city.

I wonder, though, was at what point did you have to cross off "paranoid" next to Iraq, in order to replace it with it's new, updated, Occupied-By-Foreign-Invaders status? Makes you wonder why some of the others might still be paranoid...

Re:Just a clarification and a question

[McBainLives]

Since when is "delusion of grandeur" a principle? North Korea is an abomination. No one in their right mind would "invade" in the sense of taking over, but perhaps one day the world will *liberate* the millions of people suffering under the tyrannical rule of a government that's still trying to pass off that old "marxism" scam of the 19th and 20th centuries.

And as for "occupied" Iraq- the only foreign invaders are the worthless cowards who bombed the Al-Askariya shrine and continue to make daily attacks against the Iraqi people. But they're hardly an "occupying force-" just a disease that the Iraqis will soon cure with the help of their allies (people from the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Australia who actually show some faith in the ability of arabs to govern themselves).

Re:Just a clarification and a question

[14CharUsername]

Yeah, especially Cuba. I wonder if he is aware that one of its neighbours has sent insurgents into Cuba in the past.

Re:Just a clarification and a question

[14CharUsername]

people from the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Australia who actually show some faith in the ability of arabs to govern themselves

Faith in the ability to govern themselves under the watchful eye of the US? You really think a parliament full of corrupt politicians is a godd substitute for independence?

Re:Just a clarification and a question

[aendeuryu]

Delusion of grandeur isn't the principle at work. North Korea has no intention to disarm anything because to do so would appear weak in the face of America's brinkmanship. You'll notice South Korea isn't willing to sign on for similar reasons, even though the landmines are hardly protection against artillery. Are the South Koreans suffering from delusions of grandeur as well?

Oh, and, by the way, America IS the occupying force in Iraq. It was a lack of faith in the Arabs ability to govern themselves in Iraq that led to American aid for the party that led to Hussein's regime in the first place.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Ohreally_factor]

Yeah, I saw this exact website about 4 years ago, and I could have sworn I read about it here. Can we be sure this isn't a delayed reaction dupe mine?

Abuse of the word illegal, but...

[porkchop_d_clown]

IIRC, there is a UN convention banning land mines. Also IIRC, the USA did not sign it because they wanted a grandfather clause for the no-man's land between north and south korea - that area has been so heavily mined I don't think anyone wants to think about trying to remove them all.

Re:Abuse of the word illegal, but...

[bhima]

My understanding was that treaty did not affect mines already in place so much as mine prduction and placement.
And the US is the largest producer of land mines on the planet.

Many of which are sold to the South Koreans.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[nacturation]

Civilians have no business wandering around a war zone.

Right. And war zones *never* occur around civilian populations like, say, northern France where there's still unexploded ordnance from WWII.

with all due respect

[daniel23]

but the very term of "self-healing minefield", which makes "oxymoron" sound like an soviet propaganda euphemism, makes me want to vomit onto the pectoral decorations of Mr. Donald "SelfHealing" Rumsfeld with such an urge that I feel I lack the capability to eat enough to supply the stream, so to say.

I strongly doubt there is a god as they tell us but if anyone ever had any doubt about satan being well alive and walking amongst us: look here.

Re:What's next? Electric chair stories?

[geobeck]

That this was posted to Slashdot is disgusting.

I agree that the use of land mines is reprehensible, but I disagree with this statement. All technology, especially that with the potential to increase human suffering, should be out in the open, not hidden in a military lab. Not talking about this kind of technology will not prevent it from being developed.

Re:war criminal

[spoco2]

Until, as another poster pointed out, they decide to use this technology on personnel mines too. Hell, that's probably been the plan all along, they just told them the other story so they could get people who might otherwise not work on the project to do so.

It's still making mines. Mines have one purpose, and that is to blow stuff up. Be it people or vehicles, it's all destruction and killing and just plain bad.

I don't know how people live with themselves building weapons like these, I just don't.

(Note: I worked for a little while as a student engineer on the ANZAC frigates here in Australia. I was ok with that as they are basically just big boats, and by and large all they are ever used for is patrolling our coastlines for illegal fishermen etc... but it's a fine line in some regards I suppose.

But building MINES? I don't get where you can justify that to yourself)

Right! If you want you can also...

[gd23ka]

... be the first human to shake their hands or rather their safety pins :-)

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[TheDreadSlashdotterD]

He's already accepted this fact. He made a weapon. He made a weapon that communicates with others of its kind. He made a weapon that hops around a field. It's pretty cool.

Sure, these things were made to kill. So were guns and swords. Trying to make someone feel bad about it is just silly. So long as a single being exists on this planet there will be conflict. We just happen to use tools to do it.

If you really want to make a difference, go after the governments that use and commission these weapons. They are the reason the market for them exists.

Old news...

[Brane2]

These things are cruising through the Bagdad for a few years now...

Because you don't understand the problem

[gelfling]

Minefields are 2-layered. One for personnel and one for equipment. In other words the antipersonnel mines are used to protect the equipment mines. With robotic moving mines you no longer need an antipersonal layer. In fact you can move the mines around without a breach - just randomize them once in a while.

Feature

[OverflowingBitBucket]

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?

Re:Feature

[MonsoonDawn]

Because the success rate would have to be 100%. There is a vast difference between a minefield that has been redered safe for crossing by an army and one that is safe for crossing by people fetching water or grain. How would you react if someone told you that your daily commute to work crossed several mine fields that are 99% deactivated? Would you continue to drive the same route or go around?

At 99% ineffective mines are still effective area denial weapons.

Re:Feature

[OverflowingBitBucket]

How would you react if someone told you that your daily commute to work crossed several mine fields that are 99% deactivated? Would you continue to drive the same route or go around?

I would go around, of course. Even if someone told me they were 100% deactivated.

Having said that, if my profession was post-conflict landmine disposal I would be much more comfortable knowing that I had close to 1% chance of permanent disability if I screw up than if it was close to 100%. If I lived near a former minefield I would be more comfortable knowing that stepping on the wrong spot would kill me less than 1% of time. So even 99% deactivation is better than nothing.

Of course, taking my original idea further, the mines could be set to deactivate after a certain time or on clock fault unless they got a wakeup code. That might work better than a deactivation code.

Having said that, landmines are horrible, horrible things. If people positively must kill or destroy, I'd rather a conscious intelligence behind it rather than the decision being left to an automated trap.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Mr. Shiny And New]

Actually I think if there was only one single being on this planet, there wouldn't be much conflict :)

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[no-body]

I am wondering for quite a while now about the actual meaning in making a distinction between humans allowed to be killed and mutialted and other's not so.

What could be the benefit of making such a distinction?

It serves a purpose, or it would not exist.

So, one fact is that as wars became more sophisticated from WW I, WW II, Korea, Vietnam and what all came along, the ratio of allowed (soldiers) and tolerated (civilians) caualities shifted tremendously. In the earlier wars, it was even more soldier casualities than civilians whereas nowadays it is the other way around - maybe 80 % civilians, 20 % soldiers, even more (I forgot the exact numbers, but the ratios nowadays between enemy combatants and are civilians shocking).

Now, if you want to make a "difference between enemy combatants and civilians", you are fooling youself even using those terms.

And then land mines... children loosing limbs and the cost and danger of disabling those toys. Talk about environmental pollution. Those are implements dangerous to human life. The manufacturers should be held financially responsible for that. Full cost of damages caused to civil population and cleanup cost with full insurance coverage for the personell doing it. Producing those things would become unprofitable very quickly.

Same with the whole war thing - it's one big loss for every participant, so who gains from it? It would simplify things tremendously if all the contemporary folks longing for war would be able to gather in large sport arenas and then could do their war thing by category: light combat, heavy combat, programmed killing with/by machines.

Or do it with video games where one actually pays for real - if you loose that fight - you'll have to give up a limb or get your head impacted by defined force. With some creativity, there are great possibilities doing things better and much more efficient.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[MillionthMonkey]

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.

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 .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.

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.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Magic5Ball]

1) Detecting and removing a mine are different challenges.
2) This has the potential to reduce the total number of mines deployed if the miners deposited non-explosive objects that give off the same radio signatures.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[merlin_jim]

I've read that this is also important criteria - the ability to remotely locate or disable these mines after combat conditions have passed.

They've been working on this for some years - I remember seeing that presentation about a year ago... if you dig around you can find out a lot more.

I believe I read somewhere that Princess Di praised the effort not long before her death - I think thats how I heard of it the first time... as you know, she was a big anti-mine advocate because of the civilian issues you mention...

Re:What's next? Electric chair stories?

[Kent Recal]

Well, let me jump in here.
What I find disgusting is the majority of responses so far.

Most of it appears to come from 16yr old tech-nerds (ok, the slashdot-demographic i guess?)
who display their flatmindedness with "wah, this so cool!!"-comments.
And there's the AC who (real or not) brags about how he participated in
developement of this thing.

The critical comments are very rare up to this point and that disturbs me.

I mean, this is not some new "wah, so cool"-graphics card with watercooling.
It's a device designed to kill people, for real (IRL), not on screen in your basement.
It's not "cool" in any way and the retarded argument that this
"new weapon will save lives" just doesn't cut it. Never did.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[TheDreadSlashdotterD]

Life will find a way. ;-)

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Sir_Lewk]

Well, in truth, it started with pilots throwing objects at each other, then progressing to pistols. Mounted guns were latter. Good point though.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Neoprofin]

I'm glad you're not feeling holier than thou, that'd certainly be unattractive.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Reaperducer]

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.

While your point is well taken, I'd like to pick a little nit: Bombs were dropped on people long before the airplane. People used tethered balloons.

Obligatory:

[theproff]

Imagine a beowulf cluster of those...

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[RobertLTux]

and used correctly or on a "corner case" person ANY WEAPON CAN BE LETHAL
"lucky" shot with a rubber bullet = dead target
Chemically sensitive person + tear case= dead target
Baton on the right spot or to many times = dead target
Modded Taser or taser in just the right spot = dead target

shall i go on????

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[rikkards]

Canada still uses them i.e claymores. The catch is that there needs to be someone that will trigger it remotely not via tripwire. This makes it a somewhat more intelligent mine.

What good does this do?

[Elliot Anderson]

I visited the US just over a year ago and during my stay I took a tour of the UN Building in New York.

We got to the part of the tour where they showed us the effects of war and they even had a section dedicated to landmines.
My father asked the guide who was the biggest producer of the landmines that cause so much suffering and death and the guide refused to answer him because "they are one of the members of the UN".

The next day we found out that the country that couldn't be named was indeed the United States of America.

How ironic. A member of the UN that stands against all its principles only for financial/military benifits.

You know, in Starcraft they call these...

[edunbar93]

... Scarabs. Except that instead of moving *after* they blow up, they jump out of the ground and CHASE AFTER YOU!

*POP!*

AAAAAAAAAAGH!

*KABLOOIE!*

Re:You know, in Starcraft they call these...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, close, but wrong!
That's the Spider Mines, dropped by Terran Vultures. http://www.battle.net/scc/terran/uv.shtml

Scarabs are fired by Protoss Reavers. http://www.battle.net/scc/protoss/units/reaver.sht ml

I'd expect these to decay.

[r00t]

These mines use magnetic sensors. They probably become duds as soon as a battery runs out.

The explosives will be recycled to make roadside bombs or for rocketing Israel.

Many people are missing the point

[rabiddeity]

There seems to be a lot of confusion here about types of landmines and how they work. Let's clear some of this up.

There are two types of landmines: antipersonnel and antitank. The type of mine discussed in TFA is an ANTITANK mine.

Antipersonnel mines are the ones you hear about killing and maiming civilians. These are nasty little devices designed to inflict injury to people. They do this by throwing shards of metal. Some pop out of the ground and explode. In general, they really hurt unarmed targets (i.e. people) and don't do much damage to an armored vehicle. This type of landmine is banned by the treaty everyone is talking about, because they injure a lot of civilians.

Antitank mines are activated by high pressure, and are specifically designed to blow up when a TANK runs over them. When properly designed, they do not explode when people walk over them. Many are also deployed with some anti-tamper mechanism, so that they explode when handled (so they are still potentially dangerous to an unwitting civilian who picks one up). This type of mine is NOT banned by the landmine treaty.

Again, the mine discussed in TFA is an ANTITANK mine. What makes it unique is that it can still be effective with NO anti-tamper mechanism. Even if you were to pick up and move one of these new mines, the others will move to take its place. You can't just pick up a few and make a gap; you have to pick them all up. Since it's time-consuming to clear them, they don't need to be dangerous to move.

Sure, antipersonnel mines are bad. Deploying these new antitank mines (which are incidentally LESS dangerous to civilians) means that we don't have to use antipersonnel mines anymore. This is a very good thing.

So please don't go spouting off lines like, "OMG land mines are bad and evil and they maim and kill people so why are we designing new ones??"

claymores

[r00t]

The "claymore mine" is hardly a mine. It's no more a "mine" than a morter, artillery, or hand grenade.

Re:claymores

[rikkards]

From Dictionary.com:
An explosive device used to destroy enemy personnel, shipping, fortifications, or equipment, often placed in a concealed position and designed to be detonated by contact, proximity, or a time fuse.

Fits the description of a mine quite well if you ask me.

The claymore is as much of a mine as the S-Mine (Bouncing Betty) which also was used extensively with a tripwire. The only big difference was that you can focus a claymore blast in a specific direction.

Claymore is a mine. Just depends on how you use it. Strap a tripwire rather than a private to the end of it and it becomes quite indiscriminate in what it kills/maims.

Re:claymores

[r00t]

"detonated by contact, proximity, or a time fuse"

With a tripwire attached, OK. You've built a booby trap out of a wire and a claymore, and it may just barely qualify as a mine.

With a human attached, NO. (contact: no, proximity: no, time fuse: no)

Also, I dispute the "time fuse" part. That is just a time bomb.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[ksheff]

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.

what's wrong with a taser?

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[SuperGus]

Dear DARPA Contractor:

We regret to inform you that due to your failure to purge all electronic records of your Hopping Mad Mines Project work from your personal laptop, you have been found in violation of new U.S. laws governing the safeguarding and portability of classified data.

A warrant has been issued for your arrest.

Sincerely,
United States Department of Defense

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Jeremi]

Because it only happens to worthless swarthy foriegn kids, and not your precious, precious babies

I dunno... do IEDs count?

we don't use them that way

[r00t]

We mark our minefields, and we provide cover fire. If you don't step on a mine fast enough, we shoot.

This is because we are NOT trying to be sneaky. We use the mines as a barrier. We also use razor wire and earthworks. The intent is that people will avoid crossing the minefield.

An unmarked minefield is a terror weapon. A marked minefield is a barrier.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Jeremi]

The purpose of mines in many cases is to kill civilians.

Perhaps... but even if they are never detonated at all, they still cause terrible harm to nearby civilians. Imagine being surrounded by acres and acres of fertile land and still starving to death because you don't dare go out and farm it. Mines are an effective method of "salting the earth".

Re:war criminal

[ksheff]

Maybe he likes building things that blow up? An RA in our dorm loved building bombs in his room and going up into the mountains to see how high they would make boulders fly. There are many engineers who are proud to build things that go BOOM!

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[r00t]

Children lose limbs because there are uncivilized people who create random unmarked and unattended minefields as a terror weapon.

US minefields are marked and guarded. They act as barriers, not terror weapons. We stick around to shoot anybody trying to mess with the minefield.

In actuality, this is pretty cool.

[Runefox]

If mines can be programmed to move from place to place based on information links, then can't said links trigger them to deactivate themselves (or detonate if the area is cordoned off) after the conflict has ended? If this is the case, then both the US military and landmine activists get their way.

That's not to say that a landmine that can move isn't a scary thought. Fortunately, as another has pointed out, antipersonnel mines are banned, so these are designed to attack vehicles. Another interesting technology that might develop from this could be a subterranean 'torpedo' of sorts, where this mine technology is launched as a higher-speed munition to seek out high-pressure areas and detonate. It'd be a 'dumb' munition unless remotely-controlled and detonated, but its effects on enemy morale would be severe.

They run Linux???

[r00t]

Do the mines come with source code?

Imagine a Beowulf cluster... hey, wait, you have a self-healing Beowulf cluster!

Note to self: taunt NetBSD crowd about not having a "landmine" port.

Didn't Theo say something about OpenBSD being free to use for operating a baby mulching machine? Linux can do it!

Re: Indiscriminate vs Dishonorable

[thoughtlover]

So, in this essence, if landmines don't discriminate against anyone, as I see it, there is comparison to the (I believe) Greek ideal that said poisoning your enemy was the most lecherous of acts in warime.

I suspect they would think the same of chemical/biological weapons, and even conventional bombs. Heck, they would probably think guns are unfair.

Re:What's next? Electric chair stories?

[Chrax]

And torture is illegal too, right?

Rules of war are a farce, and nobody seems to want to admit it. They are enforced and broken by those with the power to do so. The US, for instance, gets to bring war crimes charges against foreigners. At the same time, it can declare its own soldiers immune from international tribunals.

I'm sure that when several options are on the table, you might be less inclined to take one that is "illegal", but if it's the only one, I wouldn't count on finding many that would even hesitate to take it.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[SirPavlova]

That the US wouldn't sign the landmine ban is a travesty.

No, that they keep using them is the travesty. Refusing to sign the ban is just honesty.

Seriously, do you think that just because one Administration signed a ban on mines no future one will use them? The way I see it is this: if they give their word not to then do anyway, they look worse than if they just keep on doing it as they were. Once you formalise something like that, you're in a lot more trouble if you renege on the deal. Of course, I'm fairly being utilitarian about the matter...

Nice!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> Termed the "self-healing minefield", the individual mines are capable
> of detecting an enemy breach and then moving to seal the gap.

God, that sounds awesome! I can't wait to play this game, see the enemy clear a spot, then some troops waltz in later and bam! Gibbbbbbbb!

removal is not easier for the enemy

[r00t]

We don't leave unattended or unmarked minefields. We shoot people who try to cross, and we try to shoot them before they waste a perfectly good mine.

Unmarked and unguarded minefields are unquestionably evil. Marked and guarded ones... well, it's war, so not purely good but perhaps better than some alternative that may involve a future war.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Firethorn]

what's wrong with a taser?

First, a taser doesn't penetrate thick clothing. That guy wearing an insulated leather jacket? Don't bother aiming for the chest area.
Second, a taser's effectivness is relativly short lived. Many people are capable of action within seconds of the end of the pulses.

Hitting somebody with a tangling net, preferably laced with a fast setting glue, would immobalize them for quite some time.

Self-healing minefield?

[kimvette]

Now, there's a string of words I'd bet you never thought you would hear in a single sentence!

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[plunge]

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.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[LordOfTheNoobs]

The five year thing is hilarious. I read the title of this and laughed since I'd read this on darpa.mil some time ago and would never have thought to post it here. If this old thing is 'news', than I'd say that every one of these projects must count.

Re:war criminal

[Firethorn]

it's all destruction and killing and just plain bad.

Not everybody believes that destruction and killing is 'just plain bad'. You see, I feel that there are people on this world that 'just need killing', mostly because they won't play by the rules of society and let others live their own lives.

As for destruction, well, we destroy buildings all the time to make way for new, it's kinda a cycle of life thing.

In the pursuit of war, you seek to kill/destroy as much of the enemy as possible while keeping your own forces intact. In that scenario, mines actually tend to be defensive weapons, as they're planted on territory you're on, in the hope that the enemy will come by and trigger them. It's really difficult to hit a defensive enemy with mines, though it can be done with guerilla forces sneaking around.

No! Mine!

[HiggsBison]

They did this on Deep Space Mine

I think you mean "Deep Space Nine".

No! Mine! All mine! Deep Space all MINE!
Mine, mine, mine, mine, MINE!

Re:No! Mine!

[andrewman327]

All your Deep Space are belong to Mine!

Anyway, I do not like this weapon. This will enable reletively small forces to cripple large areas by deploying mines. There will not be any safe passages until one of two things happens:

1. All of the mines in the minefield are cleared. This is expensive and takes a long time, especially if new mines keep moving and attacking those trying to clear them.

2. Radio jammers. The US Army uses Warlock Red and Warlock Green jammers to stop remote controlled IEDs in Iraq. They might work here, but civilians do not have this ability and it is also pretty expensive.

If a networked minefield were established near a small African village, for example, it would be even more deadly than the ones that are already scattered across some parts of the continent.

Awesome! Landmine render farm!

[Namarrgon]

Someone tell Pixar! :-)

Though, geez, a network crash could be pretty nasty...

countermeasure

[NynexNinja]

Landmines using a radio to communicate? all you have to do is use a frequency counter in the area to find what frequency they are transmitting on, and I bet its vulnerable to many network based attacked (replay attacks, man in the middle, injection, etc). Next someone will write a program that makes them all relocate themselves on top of one another, causing them to all explode.

Re:countermeasure

[the eric conspiracy]

Now this would definitely bring DDOS attacks to a new level.

Re:countermeasure

[gatkinso]

Could work... assuming the field isn;t sprinkled with conventional "dumb" mines as well.

Do you want to be the guy to dance across that field to find out?

Didn't think so.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Gotta kill to eat, bro.

Not going to work!

[glwtta]

This is all well and good, but once The Dominion occupies a nearby station, they will eventually find a way to get through.

Then we'll have to rely on god-like aliens who are mostly only good for preachy religious episodes - this is not a good idea!

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

And that's not an evil thing to think or say?

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[zippthorne]

s/moral condemnation/lethal force/ig

reread.

not every lethal weapon needs to actually do anything at all to be effective. For instance, only two nuclear bombs have ever been dropped in anger. Since, thousands have been manufactured whose primary purpose is, in fact, not to be fired. Which bombs have had more effect on the world stage do you think, the ones that were dropped or the ones that weren't?

Re:What's next? Electric chair stories?

[ceejayoz]

At the end of the war do you think anyone is really going to be fucked?

Considering American forces already assist in mine clearing operations all over the world, yes, I think they'd do it - especially if all it takes is the press of a button.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[RealGrouchy]

Actually, anti-personnel landmines (not precisely the topic at hand) are often desisgned specifically to NOT do lethal damage, in order to burden the opposing force's resources.

Kill a human drone, and you have to pay a few hours' labour to dig a hole to stick him/her in, then move on to replacing him with another. Maimed people have to be supported while they heal (either by a military or civilian medical system), and often for the rest of their natural life if the injuries preclude them from supporting themselves, and then replace whatever role(s) they played in the military and/or economy.

That's why insurance policies pay much more for loss of limb than for loss of life.

- RG>

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[davidsyes]

INtroducing PACMINE, the Pacman-like windows-controlled landmines. These mines gobble up the enemy mines and then pursue the friendlies...

The enema of mine enemy is mine mine.
The enemy of mine enemy is mine enema.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[bunions]

Whoosh!

yeah, I guess I'm not sure what part of the original post is supposed to be funny.

This, of course, assumes you're telling the truth:

[Hartree]

I'm sure you'll get a lot of comment from those feeling morally superior.

I wonder if they'll bitch as much about those who grow tobacco/hops, program automation computers used in cigarette factories and brewers/distillers. Statistically, they lead to far more deaths than you ever will have.

But, leave it to slashdot to see only black and white and be blind to shades of grey. Especially when it's gives a chance to feel self righteous.

Men, Women, and Children Can All Be Soldiers.

[BobBobBobBobBob]

Enemy soldiers, Enemy vehicles, U.S. soldiers, U.S. vehicles, Women, Children, Medical personnel, Animals

Enemy soliders and U.S. soldiers might very well be women. Enemy soldiers might also be children (and U.S. soldiers might be children, too, depending on your definition of "child").

Perhaps you meant "non-combatant" or "civilian" instead of "women and children". "Non-combatant" would also cover "animals," though I'm less worried about an animal being killed by a mine decades after the end of a conflict than about a person being killed under the same circumstances.

More deadly to whom?

[IvyKing]

The point of these mines is to be more deadly to their intended target, not to civillians wandering down the area after peace breaks out again. My undertsanding is the avtive life of the mines is determined by the battery - once that discharges, the mine is pretty inert.

Another key point - the mines are not intended to be buried, which should make it much easier to clean up afterwards. The will also have a fair amount of metal in them, so should be easier to spot with a metal detector than the current generation of plastic landmines (plastic is used because it is cheaper than metal as well as being a bitch to detect - best approach is a combination of ground penetrating radar and nuclear quadrupole resonance).

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[mindtriggerz]

See! See! I told ya! Open Source promotes violence and, especially, terrorism! *ducks*

Try a straight WSN instead, Einstein

[mclaincausey]

What a ridiculous waste of money. Why employ a lethal robotic wireless sensor network instead of a wireless sensor network? The advantage of deploying wireless sensor networks is that you DON'T NEED THE FUCKING LANDMINES ANYMORE. Can these land mines discriminate bogeys from good guys? If a plain old WSN is deployed, it is first off safer, second-off cheaper, and thirdly, just as lethal, yet more accurately targeted when combined with a Hellfire-toting Predator drone or some other aerial bombardment.

This is more military-industrial pork.

Illegal?

[StarkRG]

I thought the UN banned landmines? Or was it an addition to the Geneva Conventions? Either way, I thought landmines were illegal for use in war...

Finland is on the list, but ...

[halitus]

Some countries have more reasons to be equipped with land mines than others. Here in Finland we have more than 1000km of land border with a former superpower, which has a long history of dropping by for a visit to their neighbouring countries. The landmines here are kept in storage during peacetime, and deployed ONLY if an invasion seems imminent, and even then maps are made about the minefield locations, so that they can be cleared later when the hassle is over.

Compare this to the method of just dropping landmines from a plane to random locations.

Power Source?

[SpanishArcher]

Since landmines are often buried, I wonder what kind of energy source do they use, and how do they mimetize on the grounde, if they can't be buried (how would they move then). Yup, I haven't RTFA.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[fourharpoon]

In addition to the mines communicating with each other, the field commanders can communicate with the landmines to detonate them remotely once they are no longer needed.

Yes, and later found out that this type of mines are susceptible to hacking attempts, so they include an RF 'firewall like' inside each. Hacker try harder, mines get patched, the cycle goes on. In the end, army resolves to old plain mines.

MOD PARENT UP

[NoTheory]

Thanks for the link. Fascinating to see that expiring mines are the primary focus of mine use by the USA.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Firehed]

Hitting one police officer with a taser, or indeed a gluing net, would almost certainly provoke (ie, authorize) them to use lethal force. Again, great in concept, but not quite what you were looking for.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[geminidomino]

I hear they're working on some kind of "distributed computer network" sort of thing...

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[fourharpoon]

I read this quote no so long ago, maybe in Rome: Total War, don't remember exactly who said it:
It is good that war is so terrible, otherwise we will get too fond of it

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[spacefight]

This was a heck of a project to work on. I got to FIRE ROCKETS! Under software control! Super cool.

No, it is not cool. And I honestly think you're an asshole.

MOD UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

What retard modded this troll? It's a joke FFS!

Damnit, if you don't have a sense of humour, then don't downmod the funny comments. I hope I get metamod when this one comes up for review.

(Posting AC to avoid the OT downmods)

Re:MOD UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's a joke FFS!"

Only it isn't a joke.

"If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." -- Marshall Georgy K. Zhukov to President Roosevelt.

Makes it funnier if anything, though.

RTFPPP - THESE MINES DEACTIVATE ON THEIR OWN

[deathcow]

Read The Power Point Presentation

These mines deactivate after "X" days and require re-activation periodically to keep them doing their thing.

Re:RTFPPP - THESE MINES DEACTIVATE ON THEIR OWN

[deathcow]

This is the link
http://www.darpa.mil/ato/programs/SHM/briefings/Fu tureLandmineSystems.pdf

And it's on page 8, that these mines self destruct after 30 days unless told to re-extend their period.

Wouldn't you hate to be the guy who forgot to reset all the mines...

Re:RTFPPP - THESE MINES DEACTIVATE ON THEIR OWN

[Skrynkelberg]

Interesting. In addition, why not use GPS to note down the position of each and every mine when you place them, and store the locations in a database? That way, once the war is over, if some of the mines failed to report that they initiated self-destruct, you could just go out and remove those manually. It shouldn't be so much hassle if you know exactly where they are. Of course, that may already be the case today.

Of course, having the mines jumping around will screw this idea up a bit.

Not the point

[Sycraft-fu]

If that's what you want you air, missle, or artillery strikes. The point is to set up a quick, cheap, effective unmanned block. You have a 10 mile stretch that you need to make sure no tanks drive through. You cannot aford to leave the kind of heavy armour there you'd need to secure it. So you deploy the mines and a Predator. Enemy hits the mine field they have to slow down and either clear it or go around. Meanwhile, the Predator has noticed and an airstrike is on the way.

Mines aren't really for destroying vehicles, they are just there to be able to, should you try and cross them so you don't. The point with the hopping mines is to make clearing it infesable. You can't just blow a path through the field, because they'll hop in the path. You have to sit and try to clear them all, which takes too long.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Bing Tsher E]

In the United States, the tangling net laced with glue would mess up somebody who can afford a lawyer's expensive insulated leather jacket. The media would get involved, and suddenly the tangling nets would be whisked off to a special room of the police armory, never to be deployed again.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Bing Tsher E]

I just have a hard time dealing with how many soybean 'embryos' got killed to make that tub of tofu, maaaan. Each bean was a living thing.

King Gustav Adolf

[Anonymous Coward]

>"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.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Bing Tsher E]

I'm not sure who you are claiming was 'angry' and dropped two nuclear bombs. From the history I have heard, it was a calm deliberate move. Or are you talking about some internal incident where someone got mad and then careless, and dropped a warhead on his foot in a munitions depot somewhere?

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Anonymous Coward]

Our SHM prototype used Linux; have you ever contributed to the kernel, and if so does that make you an accessory too?

Not at all, the difference being that the Linux kernel has multiple purposes. Weapon systems have only one potential use: killing.

Re:What's next? Electric chair stories?

[russellh]

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.

Landmines do not have a human moral compass to guide them in their actions. They exist outside of morality. Contrast this with a suicide bomber, who has decided very clearly that there is little difference between military and civilian casualties, except that civilian casualties might be more beneficial to their cause (in creating terror). At the very least, the suicide bomber distinguishes between enemy and friend. Mines make no such distinctions. Therefore, I have to conclude that mines are worse than suicide bombers. But also, for a human who is subject to moral boundaries to deploy an amoral technology is clearly immoral, because although the device acts alone, the fact that the device acts at all is due to the fact of its deployment.

Re:Sounds like a good border control solution!

[geminidomino]

Yep, because so many illegal immigrants are crossing the border in fucking tanks...

Re:What's next? Electric chair stories?

[novus ordo]

such, any technology that aids in either of these objectives is moral, or at least amoral

If murder is immoral, how can any step that leads toward it be moral, whether in self-defense or otherwise?

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[MidnightBrewer]

I guess your clients also failed to mention that these work against any vehicle, not just tanks, which means instead of killing just one person at a time, they can take out civilians by the carload.

Mines are wrong no matter what the justification. A better mine is like a better mousetrap: from the point of view of the mouse, things haven't improved.

Re:war criminal

[Anonumous Coward]

How can you talk about the rules of society and justify mines in the same sentence?

In war, the rules of society permit and indeed encourage the killing of enemy soldiers, but they forbid the killing of civilians. In peace, the rules of society forbid killing, period.

Unlike other military weapons, mines kill far more civilians than they kill enemy soldiers. They kill civilians during war and they keep killing civilians in peace time. *This* is what distinguishes mines from other weapons, and there's no way you can justify killing civilians in peace time with any military benefits of war time. Especially not with the rules of society as an argument.

Ban landmines!

[j.leidner]

"Mine Ban Treaty
The Mine Ban Treaty (also known as Ottawa Convention) was signed in December 1997 by 122 nations in Ottawa, Canada.
It bans the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of antipersonnel landmines and became binding international law on 1 March 1999, faster than any other international treaty in history.
To date, more than two thirds of all countries have signed up to the Mine Ban Treaty. (134 by July 2003)."

Has your country already signed this treaty??

* ban
* landmines
* in the US!

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[TLLOTS]

Thanks for providing a bit of insight into this project, always nice to hear from the actual people behind these stories, rather than relying on vague articles and clueless paranoid slashdotters comments :P

Don't let the idiots get you down, given the opportunity I'd probably be quite interested to work on a project like that, I imagine there were some very interesting technical challenges to overcome.

Botnets with Leverage

[giafly]

My botnet includes 100,000 bouncing mines. You still sure you want to block my spam emails? Do you feel lucky, punk?

not that big of a challenge

[SethJohnson]

There would be so much information flowing that anything of value would be lost in a flood of irrelevance.

A structured query tool that can parse spoken audio can easily sift this flood to find conversations of interest. If our taxes are being spent effectively at the NSA, they've got all sorts of databases cross-related. IRS employment data connects names to jobs. The phone listings connect the phone numbers to the names / addresses in the IRS records. You want to know what journalists might have found out something from a whistleblower?

SELECT names from IRS_table a, phone_conversation_table b where a.job = 'journalist' and b.conversation contains 'wiretap program' and a.phone_number = b.phone_number;

Our constitutional protections are not designed to be suspended during periods of extreme threats. As the foundation of our government, the framers of the Constitution promised that it would carry us through whatever turbulence we encounter. To claim that these threats require us to dispose of our protection against unreasonable search is to say the US Constitution is not sufficiently enlightened.

Seth

Old news?

[instanto]

I'm quite sure Slashdot wrote about this 1 or 2 years ago.
Where /have/ you been.

[ot] anti-personnel deployment.

[wild_berry]

I don't want this to be a flame of you or your work or kick off an anti-USA thing. I'm curious: I thought that there's an international treaty against deploying anti-personnel land mines. Am I wrong?

Re:[ot] anti-personnel deployment.

[Elaarni]

Diffrence being, this tech is for an anti-tank minefield. Im sure it can be applied to antipersonnel mines, but Im pretty sure this whole tech was conceived with the idea of NOT deploying antipersonnel mines.

Re:[ot] anti-personnel deployment.

[wild_berry]

I'd hate to see this tech deployed in an anti-personnel minefield and I see the potential for it protecting an anti-tank land mine barrage, as explained by the author of the parent to my original post; I was asking whether people still used anti-personnel land mines in light of the 1999 Ottawa treaty. Now that I've read up, it seems that the USA is among the 10 countries who stepped back from Ottawa's provisions, sticking with the rules previously agreed in Section II of the UN Convention on Conventional Weapons, which makes anti-personnel land mines at least detectable by metal detectors.

Re:war criminal

[Anonumous Coward]

Not invading far-away countries every other year could save even more US military lives, don't you think?

Easier?

[Julian Morrison]

Surely this makes them easier to clear? Find one, blow it up, others reveal themselves by moving, blow them up, and so on.

War Driving

[thelonestranger]

Brings a whole new spin to War Driving when the network your looking for is a landmine network.

Yes but...

[Frightening]

I bet you could DDOS the mines by doing this:

0) Make small hole in mine field with small explosive.

1) Wait for mines to decides who goes where and start hopping

2) Make another small hole where the mines left.

3) Repeat.

Soon mines will run out of power/hop into each other/blow themselves up out of spite.

*takes off hat and bows*

N.B (Notice also that you could pull the minefield like a carpet if you capture one of them and put it on a slow moving pickup. They will all hop after you domino-effect style).

Enforcable by whom?

[Rogerborg]

Given that the USA is the world's biggest producer and "consumer" of mines, who's going to make them clean up their mess?

Great Ideia

[DirtyFly]

War Is STupid, mines are stupid.
War serves only the interests of a bunch of Mother F*****.
Do NOT make war .


the solution :
Since the mines will be 'intelegent' theyll have software on them, hopefully Windows :P , then its simple we use swap the mines serial number with a key found on the net, then, when microsoft shuts down all pirated windozes with the Genuine Advantage program 'voilá' all mines deactivated . !!!

am I a genious or what!

Re:Disgusting

[joe 155]

I understand why you dislike mines so much (I do too) but I think your anger here is misplaced. Anti-tank mines are perfectly safe for humans to pick up and carry (or even jump on... my mum's husband was in the UK army for ages and during his training he had an instructer who took out one of these mines and jumped on it to prove this point) they pretty much don't kill people who aren't in tanks/cars etc.

I get the point about how they can kill people in tractors/cars after the war but if they only used these mines then they would be able to pick up the mines after a war and send them off safely to be decommisioned... so really the people are better off.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[WasterDave]

"Go after" the United States government. Right. Gets you in all sorts of trouble that does.

As I always say

[ajs318]

I always say to anybody putting down poison for rats, "I hope your dog eats it".

Well, now I'm saying to everyone who thinks these land mines are a good idea, I hope your kids find them.

Re:As I always say

[lloydtesterman]

Well, what exactly to you suggest for killing rats?

Re:As I always say

[ajs318]

Starvation.

Re:What's next? Electric chair stories?

[CmdrGravy]

Chris Morris had a giant moral compass, perhaps they can borrow it sometime ?

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Better.Safe.Than.Sor]

Same deal. If edgar the engineer fails to account for his mines at the close of hostilities, regardless where they have scampered off to, he is in violation of various protocols and will be hung by the neck until dead. Less making up new rules people and more enforcing the old rules. Landmine ban my ass . . .

Ob

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Do they run Linux?

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[gedeco]

First thing I was thinking about: Handicap international is fighting for years against landmines and now some useless wannabe important guy will make this creeps walk.

http://www.handicap-international.org.uk/page_255. php

Re:war criminal

[Firethorn]

How can you talk about the rules of society and justify mines in the same sentence?

Because, properly used, which is NOT as weapons of terror to be randomly scattered around, they're an effective tool in military arsenals. As in I know US doctrine in using them. They're an area denial tool. And yes, we do clean them up when we don't need them anymore. We also tend to mark area where we've laid them to keep the civilians out. It tends to warn the enemy, but like others have said, it's used as a barrier. Either the enemy goes around, sits there demining, or is forced to accept the casualties of forcing their way through.

Re:war criminal

[spoco2]

Maybe he likes building things that blow up? An RA in our dorm loved building bombs in his room and going up into the mountains to see how high they would make boulders fly. There are many engineers who are proud to build things that go BOOM!

Erm, why should it matter at all if he likes building things that blow up? Building things that blow up for the government to use to kill people is not ok just because he happens to be amused by it.

Hell, I like a good explosion as much as the next guy, but it should never be in a weapon designed to kill.

I suppose building any weapon at all is ok by you as it'd just be by someone who likes explosions?

Re:flagging this post for the secret service

[Firethorn]

No need for the SS to come by. I view this president as being an enforcer. If some people 'just need killing', well, somebody has to do it. Saddam and Osama have both demonstrated a lack of willingness to leave others alone, and domestic forces were unable or unwilling to remove them. Thus we had to do it.

Enough excuses !!!

[ThinWhiteDuke]

- 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.

Re:maybe that last question...

[14CharUsername]

maybe you should heed your own advice. The reality is that tyrants rule only with the permission of their subjects. Passive resistance helped put an end to the British Empire, while violence only leads to more violence.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Firethorn]

Where did shooting at the police come in? Somebody proposed a tangling net launcher, somebody else asked why a taser wouldn't work, and I responded. For that matter the TNL proposer was talking about shooting it at idiots before PHBs(Pointy Haired Boss, from dilbert) were impressed by the idiotic idea the idiot was proposing.

Police are allowed to use lethal force quite quickly, and in some districts, I feel too easily. I think that police, being professionals, should be held to a higher standard when it comes to 'accidental discharges'. Do you really need the SWAT team to charge in with fingers on triggers for a optometrist moonlighting as a bookie?

My suggestion to add glue to the package is for that little extra bit of effectivness. The person isn't getting out without a lot of work and assistance, though it shouldn't be too hard back at the station with an agent to dissolve the glue and maybe even the strands.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[14CharUsername]

Only the losers get prosecuted for war crimes.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Firethorn]

And you don't think that a taser, which shoots out two electrified probes wouldn't 'ruin' an expensive leather jacket? Heck, pepper spray can stain, especially some mixes that deliberatly include a dye to help police identify the assaulter who was pepper sprayed to get him to stop.

If the police were justified in shooting him with a taser/tangling net/pepper spray, the courts will rule that the cost is to be born by him. It's usually actual injury that juries make police departments pay for.

As for damaging the coat, depending upon what the glue is, there'd ideally be a kit to dissolve it back in the station, or even in the police car. If he continues to struggle, don't bother removing the net. Matter of fact, there should be at least a partial kit with the officer, if only to ensure that the airways remain clear.

Finally, if an officer does make a bad shoot and somebody's clothes get damaged, well, even a thosand bucks is a bit on the high side for a good leather jacket, and that's cheap compared to most medical expenses.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[14CharUsername]

Dude, there's still unexploded ordinance from WWI in France.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[tehcyder]

go after the governments that use and commission these weapons. They are the reason the market for them exists

That is a very dangerous argument. Would you justify working in a factory manufacturing unambiguous instruments of torture on the same basis?

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Mr. Underbridge]

Planes (and tanks) have reduced casualties. Compare the style of warfare in WWI with WWII. Tanks and planes helped reduce stalemates where they were heavily used. Where infantry was heavily used...hello Stalingrad.

Of course, nuclear MAD theory has probably saved many more lives yet.

Designed To Wound != Humane

[Moraelin]

Just as a quick clarification, mines designed to wound (e.g., minelets that just blow your foot off) aren't designed so for humane reasons, but because they do much more damage that way. If you killed a poor bastard, his mates will just chuck him in a hole and push some dirt over him. That's it. Score: 1 man down. If you blow his leg off, you took not only him out, but also made some buggers carry him, some medics patch him up, etc. Plus he still needs food, clothing, etc.

And they can actually be pretty well calibrated to that end, since they only need to blow someone's foot off. E.g., the Soviets scattered tons and tons of small pebbles, afaik made of rubber, that exploded when someone stepped on them. Think your childhood's water bombs made of a glove finger filled with water. Now think that with nitroglycerin instead, and it looks like a pebble on a mountain road. Almost no shrapnel effect (a piece of rubber won't cause too deep a wound). In fact, the taliban had fun picking those up and throwing them against the ground. That safe unless it's under your foot. But if you do step on it, you're almost _guaranteed_ to be alive, but without that foot.

At any rate, there was exactly _zero_ humanity and compassion in designing such things. It's just a cold blooded return-on-investment calculation. Those cause more damage to the enemy. That's all.

Re:Designed To Wound != Humane

[Ihlosi]

... but because they do much more damage that way.

Not just per individual mine, but also per weight. You can have one mine that'll kill a person, or four that just maim but cover four times the area.

Re:Strawmen

[Firethorn]

Like the other AC I'll pick:

D: Learn to shoot.

Besides, I hardly ever carry more than 16 rounds for my carry firearm, so it'd be a tad difficult to shoot 600.

Hell, I'd have to reload magazines for my AR to shoot 600, I only have 10 30 round mags.

CCW holders have a lower rate of shooting innocents than the police.

Of course not.

[foreverdisillusioned]

Mobile mines vs. Koreans? Bah! That never works. A single sacrificed zergling will take out the entire minefield!

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Scrameustache]

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?

Can this screw be used to make a weapon? Sure, but it's just a screw.
Can this flying anti-tank mine be used as anything BUT a weapon? No.

There's a big difference between working on something that *might*, and working on something that *is* going to kill.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[tonyr1988]

I don't know if this is the same project or not, but I know someone that works at General Dynamics that was working on this exact same project.

Their mines would only jump if something large enough (tank) was detected, not people.

I wouldn't worry about it,these kids know nothing.

[OwP_Fabricated]

Like any of these kids honestly understand what's involved in military deployment or war.

Predator drones were originally used just for recon, and they ended up being weaponized. We've killed a lot of bad people in various places with them, without risking a single soldier's life and I imagine with much fewer (if any, I don't recall predators being used to blast a lot of stuff outside of transports) civilian casualties than had we hit it with traditional weaponry or our own armor.

Of course, while this is true, I will inevitably be nitpicked by someone dumb enough to argue "WTF WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY BAD PEOPLE"...when the fact remains that it saved lives, even if it was those soldiers we're so quick to demonize in braindead moral rage. It just shows how much they don't get it.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[jinxidoru]

"Don't work on anything that could possibly have a bad use" covers an awful lot of ground.

What one must do is determine whether what they are working will do more good or bad. Everything ends up being used for bad purposes. There is no advancement that ends up being completely benign. That said, I don't think smart landmines are very ambiguous in the "bad use" category. I don't see any good use to them. So, good for you for standing up for your principles and leaving your job. There are a lot of people who will throw around accusations that someone is a monster for working on some project, but the truth is that they would have a difficult time leaving if they were in the situation themselves. It's easy to be a hero when we talk about hypotheticals. And it's easy to vilify when using hypotheticals. I hope that in a similar situation, I would have the courage to stand up for my principles as well. Good for you.

Old News. Check out FCS-IMS

[Cantinflas]

Intelligent Munitions Systems

It's the Army's plan for smart mines as part of their Future Combat Systems program. They can do everything this DARPA program described and more. (Including remote activation, deactivation, and detonation)

Check out this text from the Army's web-site:

http://www.army.mil/fcs/factfiles/ims.html

The Intelligent Munitions System (IMS) is an unattended munitions system providing both offensive battlespace shaping and defensive force protection capabilities for the Future Force. The Intelligent Munitions System (IMS) is a system of lethal and nonlethal munitions integrated with robust command and control features, communications devices, sensors and seekers that make it an integral part of the Future Combat Systems network's core systems.

Intelligent Munitions System (IMS) provides unmanned terrain dominance, economy of force and risk mitigation for the warfighting commander. Typical missions include:

        * Isolating enemy forces, objectives, and areas of decisive operations.
        * Creating lucrative targets, and engaging them or cueing other fires.
        * Filling gaps in the noncontiguous battlespace.
        * Controlling noncombatant movement with its nonlethal capabilities.

With its reduced footprint, Intelligent Munitions System (IMS) can be delivered by various means, and once on the ground, locate itself, organize all of its components and report its location to the Battle Command Mission Execution (BCME). It will be under positive control of the BCME, one of the FCS command and control applications. The munition field can be armed, turned off to allow friendly passage, then rearmed to resume its mission. This on-off-on capability allows it to be recoverable, further reducing its logistics footprint. Intelligent Munitions System (IMS) will not become a residual hazard; it will self-destruct on command or at a preset time interval. It will also be tamper resistant.

--Cantinflas

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Aaron England]

Nah...

More likely: I'll take 50,000 dumb-mines and 25,000 smart-mines, and use them where they make sense. Same reason why we still have dumb bombs and precision guided munitions.

Mod parent -1 WRONG

[Aaron England]

Are you really that naieve? Profit knows no "evil customer" or "good customer", not even to the Europeans. Do some research.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[maxwell demon]

Can this flying anti-tank mine be used as anything BUT a weapon? No.

You could put it into a museum and claim it to be modern art. :-)

POWs useful

[AHumbleOpinion]

You know what else is a useful tool in the time of war? Killing POWs.

No, it is more useful to exchange POWs or use them as "hostages" so that your soldiers who have been captured are cared for. They are also valuable sources of information, no torture required by the way.

I understand your sentiment but making ignorant statements does not really help in the long run; it undermines your credibility. Try keeping things more rationale, right now you are only preaching to the choir and being dismissed by the rest.

They deactivate by detonating

[AHumbleOpinion]

Sure until someone decides to hack into the mine network and reactivate the mine field.

You realize they deactivate by detonating? ;-)

Second Variety by Philip Dick

[whorfin]

Philip Dick wrote a short story called Second Variety that was about intelligent, moving robotic 'mines' that had a way to distinguish friend from foe, and would seek out the enemy. If you haven't read the story, I recommend it, and afterward I think you'll agree with me in thinking that we don't want to go there.

Why bother?

[HarmlessScenery]

There is no effective way of 100% clearing an area of mines. The main use of mines is area denial. So, letting the enemy know WHERE mines are is not a bad idea. Either they then go around the field into the choke points that you want them in, or they spend time and effort clearing the area which either a) delays them or b) screams "here we are" or c) both.
So why not just have every mine emit a clear radio signal? That way you (and the enemy) can have simple mine-field detectors ... it doesn't matter that they know where they are.
Wire the transmitter into the arming circuit and build in a timer that defuses the mine after a certain period of time. That way, if the mine is transmitting it's signal, it's still live and once it's safe it stops transmitting. Then it's easy to spot if any failed to disarm, and you can use triangulation to pick out the few rogue mines that didn't disarm (or better still have the signal change on disarming, so that you can go back and clear up the duds too if you want to).
... but of course the enemy can triangulate too and that makes it easier to breach the mine-field, right? Except that you can seed the area with cheap emitters that mimic mines at the same time. The enemy don't know which are live mines and which are fakes - and you build in the same 'time to die' function into the fakes.
Makes it easy to clean up afterwards and there's no need for self healing mobile mines as you can dump thousands of the fakes across the area to make sure that creating any gaps in the first place is *tough*. You might even find you can get away with using fewer mines in the first place.

Re:Sounds like a good border control solution!

[n0dalus]

Yep, because so many illegal immigrants are crossing the border in fucking tanks...

Luckily most people outside America are smart enough not to drive SUVs.

They have plans for everything?

[mary_will_grow]

Yeah, they have plans for EVERYTHING. Like "what to do in Iraq once we got topple it"! Or "What to do with all those bomblets we littered all over Laos that didn't go off when we dropped cluster bombs." Or "What to do when our nuke testing in the marshall islands causes a 25 fold increase in birth defects for the natives"

Yeah, the US military are the kings of planning ahead.

I just don't understand people like you who think the US goes around cleaning up other people's messes. We leave such messes everywhere its pathetic.

I hope you step on a land mine. I really do.

Re:What's next? Electric chair stories?

[crabpeople]

"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,"

So.. Anthrax bombs are OK then by you eh? what about 747's full of passengers? its war right? anything goes! WP grenades, tactical nuclear weapons, mustard gas.. And people wonder why american soldiers have their balls cut off and their eyes extracted by so called "savages"....

"But this does not make them immoral in the context in which they are meant to be used."

Well i would say that when your objective is to torture the enemy horribly with biological weapons before they ultimately die, then yes i would say thats pretty fucking immoral you sick fuck.

Folks, which should worry me more?

[The_REAL_DZA]

I sense the overwhelming need to feel some dread, but I just can't decide which thing to attribute it to:
 

• That someone presents such (arguably/obviously) a facetious argument in such a convincing tone (even on Slashdot...)
• That a few of the suggestions actually sounded pretty good (like the net at the meeting -- I even thought it might be a good idea to just tag the marketing guys as they come into the meeting...)
• Or that the parent is currently carrying a +4 Interesting mod.

 

5 YEARS OLD!

[1u3hr]

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?

Yeah, I read about this in The Register about 3 years ago. And on the DARPA site, there's a timeline

Program Milestones
Spring 2003 Planned Completion of Phase II - Enhanced subsystem performance and 50-plus prototype minefield operational testing and demonstration. System technology transition to the U.S. Army.

Spring 2002 Completion of Phase I - Enabling technology development and small-scale prototype minefield testing.

Spring 2000 Self-Healing Minefield system development contracts awarded.

June 1999 Self-Healing Minefield BAA99-21 released.

June 1998 DARPA Track II Task Force briefed Deputy Secretary of Defense on Self- Healing Minefield as Track II alternative.

October 1997 Deputy Secretary of Defense directs DARPA to execute Antipersonnel Landmine Alternative Track II study.

So it looks like this page (and project?) has been inactive since about 2002. So much for the breathless Slashdot summary "New landmines will soon communicate via a radio network." Right. Real Soon Now.

Re:Disgusting

[Elaarni]

I suppose you arent to blame for the current administration either? Its nice to have such a clear moral compass when you can spew venom at others anonymously, but I suspect it would cause quite a bit of second thought if we were able to examine your life for consistancy when you post such self rightous rhetoric.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[1u3hr]

Planes (and tanks) have reduced casualties. Compare the style of warfare in WWI with WWII.

MIlitary casualties perhaps. But in WWI, millions of soldiers died in the trenches, in WWII, many more millions of civilians were killed by bombs and armour. The London Blitz; Dresden and Tokyo firebombing; Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It's USA government

[Nicolay77]

The United States is the biggest user of metal landmines.

Lots of countries banned them, but not the USA because they used lots and lots of them in the line dividing the two Koreas.

The country with most landmines in the fields is Colombia, but the landmines there are done with coconuts and syringes, by the guerillas, not by any legal landmine maker.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Brandybuck]

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

If you remove the politics and emotionalism from the current Iraq occupation, it turns out that it has caused FAR LESS human misery than other similarly sized military actions. On both sides. Heck, it's statistically safer being an Iraqi civilian than a Washington DC resident.

New weapons that are designed to kill more people will of course increase human misery. But the current emphasis on military research is on weapons that are precise rather than indiscriminate.

Self-deactivating minefields (was Re:Hoppers!)

[Alan426]

Some U.S. mines are designed to self-destruct after a preset deployment period. "All [scatterable] mines have a safe-arm time from (45 seconds to 2 minutes). When mines fail to arm they will self-destruct immediately. SD times are not exact, mines actually self-destruct in a window between 80 to 100 percent of their SD time ie. mines with a 4 hour SD time will start to SD in 3 hours 12 minutes." See http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/fascam.htm Also http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/pol icy/army/fm/20-32/index.html

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[karmatic]

So, in other words, go for the lethal force first, and make sure you finish the job, ensuring he has no opportunity to fight back?

I try to avoid attacking policemen in general (ran from one, once, though...), and I'd much rather face the consequences of tasering an officer than killing him.

Re:Disgusting

[Bombula]

Man, oh man, did you pick the wrong target to wave the rhetorical flag at! You better believe I practice what I preach. I'm an anthropologist and have been living and working in developing countries for 20 years, where I can see the damage land minds do to children every day. I'm in the Middle East right now, working to try to help clean up the mess our asshat administration has made over the last 6 years.

And as for being to blame for the current administration, I voted for Gore in 2000 only because I didn't want Nader to help give Bush the election, and Kerry in 2004 for the same reason. Not that the Democrats are much more than Republicans in liberal clothing, but I'm a pragmatist, not a blind idealist.

I don't think that's true.

[porkchop_d_clown]

Yes, they want to ban new landmines - but the destruction of old minefields was also part of the treaty.

Also, wikipedia (for what it's worth) indicates that none of the large military powers have signed the treaty. I had thought the US was the lone hold out.

Re:What's next? Electric chair stories?

[Chrax]

> So.. Anthrax bombs are OK then by you eh? what about 747's full of passengers? its war right?

I rarely approve of war and its tactics. I do not condone any of those actions. My point was essentially that normal standards of morality do not apply in war.

If a crashing into a building with a 747 full of passengers actually helped neutralize the enemy, then it would make sense as a military tactic. As it is, it simply pissed the US off and strengthened its resolve, making it an ineffective tactic. The fact that the US historically has entered wars following symbolic losses (Alamo, Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, among others) made it an *idiotic* tactic. Speaking in moral terms, it was immoral, since it did nothing to advance either main objective, and anybody with a basic knowledge of US history would have known from the start that it wouldn't.

> Well i would say that when your objective is to torture the enemy horribly with biological weapons before they ultimately die, then yes i would say thats pretty fucking immoral you sick fuck.

You're thinking as a human being that needs to live in cooperation with others. In a war, your survival depends on preventing your opponent from killing you. Therefore, you must take whatever measures necessary to prevent him from doing so. If he has an army, it may mean killing or otherwise incapacitating a very large number of people.

If someone treats torture as an end in itself, I'd consider them a psychopath. However, as a means of debilitating and demoralizing an opponent, it may be very effective.

Since it apparently didn't come through in my original post, let me make it very clear: I do not approve of wars. I do not approve of war tactics. But human morality is largely based on the need to live together, and in the context of war, that goes out the window.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[middlemen]

Actually I think if there was only one single being on this planet, there wouldn't be much conflict

Hmm... if that "single being" were a guy, would he die of excessive masturbation ? In effect, would masturbation become a weapon in disguise ? What would he masturbate about ?

Re:What's next? Electric chair stories?

[Chrax]

Is murder necessarily immoral? Suppose for instance there is an invading army occupying your home town. You aren't allowed out at night, and they keep tabs on everything you do in public, maybe even stopping by your house once a week or once a day to make sure you're not up to anything. Would it be immoral to kill (or murder, if you prefer) the soldiers, forcing the invading army to constantly reallocate resources to your area, potentially giving somebody else a chance to drive them out of your country?

Whether or not I agree with war, a warrior cannot be burdened with normal standards of morality if he is to acheive his goals.

Biodegradable mine Re:...clean up too!

[mrmeval]

Based on some other light reading you could even tell or time the mine to deactivate and release a feeding solution that would encourage the breakdown of the explosive to non-toxic components or to release a colorant to facilitate detection. Either could be timed or activated by chemical means rather than depending on the electronics thus making the mine somewhat biodegradable.

Sweden FOI issues an annual report, one of the detection methods mentioned in the 2003 report is the breakdown of explosive by bacteria. They are also working on environmentally friendly explosives. I merely couple these two ideas into one.

http://www.foi.se/FOI/templates/startpage____96.as px/

Re:What's next? Electric chair stories?

[Chrax]

Do you not agree that moral boundaries must shift in a war?

If you are the aggressor, you must impose your will upon the opponent. If you are the defender, you must prevent your opponent from doing so. In either situation, if you are constrained by "normal" moral boundaries (those adopted when living in cooperation is key to survival), your enemy gains an advantage.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[955301]

Don't be ridiculous. You worked on a weapon. You can't use it to make cheese, it doesn't wash dishes, and I don't want to cover myself up with it at night to keep warm. It's a weapon. Linux is used for various things.

It's not that our moral compass is ideal - it's that yours is so screwed up.

Case in point - if you worked on inventing guns, at least those have been used at some point to feed people off buffalo meat in the past. You worked on a LAND MINE.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[RetroGeek]

certain amount of potential chemical energy that is released by combustion

Doesn't C4 need a shockwave to set it off? I believe that you can set fire to it and it only burns up, slowly.

So include a timer which starts a fire, which burns up the explosive and the case.

Get Your War On noted this

[matuszek]

Not exactly new... David Rees wrote, in 2002, in Get Your War On:

As I was finishing this book, someone sent me a link to the DARPA website. (DARPA stands for Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. It's part of the U.S. Department of Defense.)

DARPA is working on a new project called the "Self-Healing Minefield." I love that phrase. I assumed that it meant that after being deployed for a certain time, the minefield would "heal" itself by becoming inoperable. You know--so little kids don't get accidentally blown up?

It wasn't until I watched the explanatory video on DARPA's website that I realized--the minefield heals itself by automatically repositioning its landmines after some explode. The mines literally fucking hop into position to fill gaps in the field.

Of course. A Self-Healing Minefield.

US 'stockpiles bioweapons'

[Original Replica]

Oh we have them don't you doubt that for a minute. We claim to be getting rid of them though.
"The US stockpile consists of over 30,000 tonnes of unitary CW gent and approximately 700 tonnes of binary components. It includes the nerve agents sarin and VX and the vesicant mustard. They are stored at the nine locations: Johnston Atoll in the Pacific Ocean; Edgewood, Maryland; Anniston, Alabama; Blue Grass, Kentucky; Newport, Indiana; Pine Bluff, Arkansas; Pueblo, Colorado; Tooele, Utah; and Umatilla, Oregon. The cost of destroying the US stockpile is currently estimated at approximately $12.4 billion. Large-scale destruction operations began at the Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System (JACADS) in 1990. The second destruction facility at Tooele, Utah, began operation in August 1996. http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/cw/cwind ex.html#rogues"
  However our commitment to really disarming biologically seems to be shaky at best. http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_06/biopatent_j une03.asp

Can you hack them into all going to one spot?

[neo]

It be nice if someone could figure out how to hack these into all clustering and then blowing each other up. Landmines are the most cowardly type of warfare and leave wherever they are used a mess for years afterwards. At the very least they should all be programmed with a "time to die" where they become harmless.

Re:Can you hack them into all going to one spot?

[tempehop]

It'd never be allowed for the simple reason that if an enemy got a hold on the code to blow them up or the war went longer than expected they would be a waste of money.

That works with land mines too.

[r00t]

Find out where the buffalo like to eat/sleep/fuck/hide. Maybe leave a bit of bait, such as a salt lick. Place the landmines.

With the radio, you don't have to sit around waiting. You could mine a huge area. When a buffalo triggers a mine, the mine could first transmit a signal so that you know your dinner is waiting.

Re:Strawmen

[Firethorn]

Here's my worldview:

Violence has it's place, especially for people's defense of their bodies and rights, and the exact form that violence takes doesn't really matter that much. Same with military matters. When you decide to use violence, you should use as much of it as you need/can.

Sure, Mr Oleg's site is a little abrubt, but I'll fully admit that it's trying to get you to a certain conclusion.

Hint: Mr. Oleg is a Jewish immigrant from Russia. He knows very well what an unrestrained state can do. The usage of firearms to deter crime is almost a side benefit.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[RsG]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-4_(explosive)

From Wiki (assuming it's accurate):

It will not explode even if hit by a bullet, punched, cut, or thrown into a fire. The only reliable method for detonation is via a detonator or blasting cap. However, applying pressure in combination with heat can often cause detonation..... ....Because C-4 burns slowly if a started explosion is not feeding it, during the Vietnam War era, many soldiers would use small amounts of C-4 as means of heating rations while on long patrols. While many soldiers were able to use C-4 in this manner safely, there are several anecdotes about soldiers attempting to put out the fire by stomping on it and causing it to detonate.

So, in short, I wouldn't count on it. Burning C4 is likely to just expend it's chemical energy slowly, but there is still a danger if the mine is put under pressure as well. Also, I wouldn't gurantee that the fire would keep burning in a buried mine; often when you burn something in an unventelated environment, it will use up available oxygen and snuff itself out.

And as I understand it, a C4 fire is slow and takes a great deal of time to burn all the available explosives - if there isn't a person around to make sure it's all burned up, then you can't know for sure that therre isn't still live exlosives in the mine. Plus, if the mine uses C4, then it presumably uses a blasting cap - do you really want to expose a detonator to fire?

I have a better idea

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

The UN finally acknowledges that the USA has been in war all the fucking time for the last 200 years, and is the only country in the world that has been in war in virtually all regions, and acepts that they just do it because they want more power and more economic control over the rest of the world. And then they acknowledge that they are way more dangerous than Irak, because a) Irak has no military power and b) Because Irak had only certain SPECIFIC military targets targets, and they have at least a "valid reason" (no reason is valid when we are talking about killing thousands, but you get the point) to attack those targets, while the USA has EVERY country as a target, just because they want more money, or more power, or control over a region because of strategic reasons, or they just don't like your ideas (read: Cuba). And then, they agree that the USA has violated more human rights than any other country, and not inside their territory, in a controlled manner (only a few cases, decided by the state itself and not by some soldiers), and because of real reasons of national security, like Cuba did, but all over the world, all the time outside their frontiers where they just don't care, with no control from the state, and in the order of millions, over the whole fucking last 100 years.

After realising all this, the UN treats the USA just like they permitted the USA to do with countrys like Nicaragua, Irak, Cuba, etc. and they restrict they commerce, and menace them with invasion, until they disarm and remove their troups from foreign countrys where they don't belong.

Off course this isn't going to happend, obviously NATO is way more powerfull than the UN, and both are mainly controlled by the USA, and off course that the most powerfull nations in the world won't say a damn word about it because the USA won't fuck with them, and because they all gain money out of having a 3rld world, And this has been the task of the USA during the last century, to make sure we have a bigger 3rld world, so they can get rich and powerfull out of it.
This makes them a strange empire, all of the empires that walked this earth before meant off course destruction and domination, but they also meant the growing of many civilizations, culture, etc.
England was once a powerfull empire, and they are responsible for creating Australia. Spain and Portugal were empires too, but they are responsible for allmost all latinamerica.
Just tell me one positive thing the USA has donde for the world. Others conquer and dominate, but also teach, improve, create, and lets grow.

The USA just destroys so 200 millions of below-the-average rednecks in the north can buy a playstation.

Again, this situation ISN'T going to change anytime soon, but at least stop talking about the actions of the USA as if they had a reason, or were justifiable in some way. It's just plain old GREED, and you don't mind killing people to get what you want. It's allright, keep doing it, but at least get real.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[maggern]

>While your point is well taken, I'd like to pick a little nit: Bombs were dropped on people long before the airplane. People used tethered balloons.

...and artillery and canons pretty much had the same effect...

Paranoia come to life

[MilenCent]

It cannot be a good thing that this reminds me of devices from a particularly evil Paranoia adventure. The one with the gigantic, neurotic robot tank. In which the players are given a box of old-tech land mines and a remote control labeled "ON" and "OFF". When flipped to "ON", the mines sprout little crab-like legs and scuttle off looking for the best places to set themselves, showing up throughout the rest of the adventure at just the wrong time.

And: "These are thinking mines. They go off when they think they're supposed to."

Terrible I'd say

[amran]

As if we didn't have enough trouble with landmines getting left over after wars are over and killing innocent civilians, now they're making them even harder to find and disarm?

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Achromatic1978]

it's statistically safer being an Iraqi civilian than a Washington DC resident.

I was surprised and skeptical to read this. With good cause, it would seem:

Population of Iraq: 28,807,000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq)
Population of Washington DC: 563, 384 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_dc
Estimated civilian deaths, Iraq conflict: 41,054* (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/)
Homicide count, 2005, Washington DC: 195 (http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1239,q,543308, mpdcNav_GID,1523,mpdcNav,%7C.asp)
Death ratio, Iraq: 41,054 / 28,807,000 = 0.14%
Death ratio, Washington DC: 195 / 563,384 = 0.03%

In other words, you are NOT safer as an Iraqi civilian than as a DC resident. You're FIVE times more likely to die as a result of the war as you are from homicide. I used homicide as a parallel for death due to war as a civilian casualty. Yes it's not perfect, but if you have a better metric, I'd be happy to compare.

* Median of min/max estimates as supplied.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Frozen Void]

Something that resembles Spider mines from Starcraft(self-cloaking,unit chasing mines,laid by vultures).Its would be frieghtening to see a batch of mines chasing and exploding at close range.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[RetroGeek]

do you really want to expose a detonator to fire

:-)

You win the prize

[p3d0]

That's the single lamest argument I've ever heard. The Linux kernel could be used for evil, and we all know the Linux kernel itself is not evil, THEREFORE IT'S OK TO DESIGN MORE EFFECTIVE LAND MINES.

Mines in Colombia

[mimio]

That means that there will be more children who will loose their arms and legs here in Colombia because of the mines. And there are people still thinking that the FARC are heroes and want to free Colombia.

http://www.colombiasinminas.org/

Bioluminescent bacteria detects mines

[spun]

Heard about this some years ago, scientists were developing a bioluminescent bacteria that feeds on the trace chemicals given off by explosives. Supposedly you can sprinkle some of this stuff over a suspected minefield and in a week or two the dirt around the mines will glow under ultra-violet light.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[TheDreadSlashdotterD]

The word "protest" comes to mind. You may have heard the word before.

I admit it was poor english and word choice on my part, but you people read too much into it.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Scrameustache]

You could put it into a museum and claim it to be modern art. :-)

That... would actually be a pretty cool

Slight problem

[Muchsake]

Okay we attack in one hour - send the signal to the enemy's mines that the war is over!

RFID tags for AP mines ?

[Ihlosi]

Anyone ever thought of this ? Would be a great way to verify that an area has been completely demined, or find the approximate position of mines that have been moved (by flood/other explosions/etc).

scifi landmines

[80 85 83 83 89 33]

anybody seen Screamers?

a lot scarier than Terminators...

Bush's new plan for border control

[cpopin]

Of course, they'll wait until after prime picking season.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Veggie heads are useless.

Do a little research about the human teeth and you'll see why a world where we can't eat meat is a world where dentists make BILLIONS!

Also, find out how long you could survive on only veggies without taking giant multivitamins. How long would you last before your body started shutting down? (Not very long is the answer.)

So, yeah. You gotta kill to eat.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Brandybuck]

I used homicide as a parallel for death due to war as a civilian casualty.

Why? Whatever makes you think they're equivalent? Homicide is a much narrower definition than that used by www.iraqbodycount.net, which counts all deaths indirectly related to the occupation.

Here's a link that reference Iraq being safer than DC: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=55283

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Achromatic1978]

1) How indirect are civilian deaths related to the occupation? They're not counting sickness and illness. They're counting deaths related to military and insurgent activity.

2) Your link was quite interesting (genuinely) - what I also found interesting, too, though, was the 50+ comments, 90%+ of which went into showing flaws in the OPs opinions.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Brandybuck]

1) Yes, of course. But on the other hand, homicide statistics ONLY count homicide (duh). Thus one is sampling a smaller subset than the other.

2) Comments are like assholes. Everyone has one and they all stink. So it really doesn't mean anything that the article had negative comments.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[colmore]

War has become much safer for soldiers and much much MUCH more deadly for civilians. It used to be civilians didn't die until the infantry actually marched into the city. With bombs and, later, missiles, civilian casualties in warfare now grossly outnumber military casualties. This is a product of modern technology.

As far as MAD saving lives, I think we'll need to wait another hundred years or so before we can really claim that. While it's prevented large scale conflict in the past 50 years, if the dominoes start falling, and those stockpiles get used, all those traditional wars that were prevented aren't going to look like diddley compared to the death tolls that will start ringing up when major cities get turned into glass and ashes.

The combat advances of world war II did overcome the stalemate problem of world war I (WWI was the first time since mideval seiges where defensive technology outperformed offensive technology) defensive weaponry almost always creates horrible combat situations that the inventors didn't predict.