Slashdot Mirror
Networked Landmines Work Together
crazedpilot writes "New landmines will soon communicate via a radio network, and move from place to place in order to be most effective." Termed the "self-healing minefield", the individual mines are capable of detecting an enemy breach and then moving to seal the gap.
These fucking mines HOP.
I swear I use the same things in Half-Life 2.
from the site though, the best part has to be:
Technical Support for your hopping mines!
I really want to know what happens when they run out of power though?
Are they inert or do they revert to a dangerous stepper?
The inert option would seem the best since they can be tended to for the duration of the war then afterwards no children will lose their legs or anything.
liqbase
is going to make Metal Gear Solid much more difficult
Mines that move? That is goddamn frightening.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I'd be much more impressed if, rather than moving to seal a breach, they were capable of recognising the difference between enemy combatants and civilians who have wandered into the field (usually long after the war has finished).
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Wouldn't a landmine that transmits a signal be relatively easy to detect? Just look for the signal and disable the mine. On the plus side, maybe these would make it easier to clean them up when the particular war that used them was over. There are many countries that are potted with landmines from wars that ended years ago. Taking a stroll in the country in these places is extremely dangerous.
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
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
We already have ~way~ too many landmines, and way too many innocents being killed or disabled by them.
IF you're going to design a high-tech landmine, for heavens sakes, design in a renewable sunset clause so that if the landmine doesn't hear from you in 30 days it disables itself. If you need to reenable it, fine, but disabled should be the default.
Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
if we could spend billions of dollars perfecting self-healing civilians. Maybe splice some lizard genes into them so they can regenerate their lost limbs...
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
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?"
~ C.
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.
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.
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!"
"On the morning of July 8, 2005, fourteen-year-old Duong Ba Tien left to go work in the peanut fields of Vietnam. He never came back. Hours later, his mother found him, his life snuffed out by a Vietnam War era explosive he encountered while digging in the ground."
Read more about how land mines suck. Do you know why landmines are popular? It's more demoralizing for an army to have to leave wounded soldiers behind (or carry maimed soldiers, which puts them at a tactical disadvantage) as compared to a clean kill.
There is such a thing as in imoral technology. That this was posted to Slashdot is disgusting.
If you're going to report on anything, ScuttleMonkey, try posting about technology that saves lives.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Since when to landmines heal anything?
An adaptive minefield would be a better term for it. They only "advance" this land mine possesses is the unique ability to be turned against friendly forces by a technologically advanced enemy. How would you like the land mines you planted hopping toward you in the middle of a fire fight?
As a former artilleryman, I can tell you that this would be close to useless. We were taught to clear minefields with artillery barrage - that is, when the first soldier encounters a mine, they all draw back and call in artillery. An artillery barrage will detonate all of the mines, regardless of whether they want to be detonated or not.
I never did like the concept of mines in the first place. They are the only munition in which a human is not involved in the targetting decision. Think about that - they'll kill anyone, or anything, indiscriminantly. U.S. mines will kill:
Land mines are the only munition which stand a substantial liability of killing non-combatants. The aren't a humane weapon no matter how you think about it.
And this so-called advance really isn't an advance. Typically, when encountering a minefield, the infantry will call in artillery, which will detonate all the mines on the battlefield at once.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
The British Army are, I believe, required to mark out where minefields are and clean them up when they leave the area.
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.
Obviously removing mines is a nervous business (unless you have one of the awesome <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_tank">
Beep beep.
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.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
...why not just tell them where the enemy is and listen for the bangs?
rj
How about when a hacker starts sending bad "mine blown" messages to the grid, making the mines reconfigure? Maybe they keep detonating off each other, maybe they start all hopping (with some nice navigational hacking) back towards the ones who deployed them?
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
It's not about the money, it's about the time. Hoverboards and cancer cures are a long ways away (mostly waiting on other scientific breakthroughs like nanotech). We already have technology for mines and wireless networks, though. (Common sense, really)
Wonder what the public key field is for?
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.
Call me old fashioned, but aren't we having enough problems in the world with standard mines that don't move, to be thinking about making more deadly landmines?
Get your own free personal location tracker
"I 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.
I hope you're right. But I'm always wary of claims that new weapons will reduce human misery.
Look at non-lethal policing weapons. They haven't replaced lethal force, they've just allowed the police to weaponize conflicts they previously wouldn't have had weapons for: they can shoot first against a civilian demonstration if they aren't using bullets. I'm sure the people working on those projects imagined their technology replacing firearms. I'd be wary of working on any weapons project, no matter how rosy a picture the client painted for me.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
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.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
"anti-US sentiment in the world."
Especially from our competitors in the arms business, including sweet neutral Sweden and Switzerland, culturally superior France, etc.
I bow my head in shame.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I think the issue with landmines is that they're left behind long after the conflict has ended. Anyone can step on these things after the fact.
self-deactivating timers in a few months, with explosives that decay in a few years, and casings that bio-degrade in a few decades would be better. (for the winners)
Nah, costs too much.
"I'll take 100,000 dumb-mines for my $10mil, instead of only 50,000 'treehugger' mines"
Power to the Peaceful
> There is such a thing as in immoral technology. That this was posted to Slashdot is disgusting.
/. is acting as a news service here. It's not as if they appended praises to their report.
>
> If you're going to report on anything, ScuttleMonkey, try posting about technology that saves lives.
I wasn't aware that news only involved the prettier uses of technology. Here I sat in my naïveté, thinking we ought to hear about both good and bad things.
Sarcasm aside,
To address the first quoted claim, I disagree that this is an immoral use of technology. In a war, the two essential objectives are to preserve your resources (such as soldiers lives) and to neutralize the enemy, with preference going towards the latter. As such, any technology that aids in either of these objectives is moral, or at least amoral (I tend to think of war -- it's execution, not necessarily its objectives or motivations -- amorally, but that you can assign value judgments based on various objectives allows us to speak in moral terms if we like).
Is this use of technology disgusting? I think so. So are assault rifles and hand grenades, in my opinion. But this does not make them immoral in the context in which they are meant to be used.
Case in point: A century ago, there were those who thought the airplane would make war obsolete because neither side would be able to plan attacks without the other side knowing. Then someone put a gun on a defensive plane to shoot down the reconnaisance planes. Then someone else put a gun on an offensive plane to shoot down the defensive planes. Then someone else said "To hell with reconnaisance; let's drop bombs on the enemy." ...and so on.
This strategy, while it means well, will probably lead to the development of anti-personnel land mines that attack approaching soldiers by homing in on the magnetic signature of their weapons... or the farm implement some poor soul is toting across the field after the war.
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
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?
These are anti-tank mines, not anti-personnel mines.
The U.S., although not a signatory to the formal ban, doesn't use AP mines in combat (with the exception of on the Korean peninsula). Anti-tank mines and command-detonated anti-personnel devices (aka Claymores) are still allowed, provided that the AT mines are not equipped with anti-handling devices.
AT mines still serve a distinct purpose in warfare, and they're not likely to be dropped from the world's arsenals anytime soon.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
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?
Look at non-lethal policing weapons. They haven't replaced lethal force, they've just allowed the police to weaponize conflicts they previously wouldn't have had weapons for: they can shoot first against a civilian demonstration if they aren't using bullets.
.45. But the police have way more nonlethal toys than that, and if you've decided that these standard options are just not for you, you'll still be able to find something that fits your style- perhaps tear gas grenades, or pepper spray, or even something as simple as the lowly police baton.
Which is completely unfair if the civilians aren't going to be armed with the same range of devices that are available to police. So the public needs to start arming itself with these weapons immediately. This means all of you- open another tab right now and start buying some non-lethal weaponry for the next time you run into the police in a crowded public setting. Tasers are sold to nervous women all over the Internet, and you can buy "X-Ring" rubber bullets in a variety of calibers up to
The non-lethal weapon I want is the capture net that is fired from a 37 mm launcher, with weights at the corners that spiral around the guy. I'd use that one at meetings for when someone comes up with a really bad idea- the kind of bad idea that needs to be stopped now before too many PHB-types hear it. I'd stand up, say "stop right there" and fire the net around the person, immobilizing him before his bad idea got any traction. I really think that would help me make my point.
If everyone in the meeting were afraid that anyone there might be armed with one of these things, it could really cut down on bad ideas.
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.
-- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
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!
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.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
- We sell weapons, but the French sell weapons too... ...
- We use landmines, but the Poles do it too...
- We shoot civilians, but the Israelis do it too...
- We start illegal wars, but the British were there too...
- We trample civil rights, but would you rather live in China?
- We torture prisoners, but Saddam was worse...
-
See a pattern?
If your stated policy is to never let anyone be more evil than you on any single issue, you've basically decided to become the evilest of the pack.
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.