Networked Landmines Work Together 768
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.
Sick country (Score:1, Insightful)
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/ [icbl.org]
I must say (Score:5, Insightful)
The last thing the world needs is more landmines (Score:5, Insightful)
Smart Mines.. (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Awesome!! (Score:2, Insightful)
It'd be great (Score:5, Insightful)
What's next? Electric chair stories? (Score:4, Insightful)
Read more about how land mines suck [fromthesalmon.com]. 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 [wikipedia.org].
Self Healing? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
If they can move... (Score:4, Insightful)
rj
Re:Awesome!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Aren't the old mines deadly enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Hoppers! (Score:1, Insightful)
Landmines are awful, but letting genocidal dictators rule the world is worse.
LK
Re:What's next? Electric chair stories? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:I must say (Score:2, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Smart Mines.. (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Sick country (Score:3, Insightful)
war criminal (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Useful for post-war clean up too! (Score:4, Insightful)
What happens when the mine "chooses" not be inactivated?
Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah, costs too much.
"I'll take 100,000 dumb-mines for my $10mil, instead of only 50,000 'treehugger' mines"
Re:who supports land mines ? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Immoral (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hoppers! (Score:2, Insightful)
LK
Re:Sunset Clause (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Detection (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Useful for post-war clean up too! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hoppers! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hoppers! (Score:3, Insightful)
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:The last thing the world needs is more landmine (Score:2, Insightful)
You made a weapon. Something that will kill someone. About time to accept what you've done, don't you think?
Dave
Re:who supports land mines ? (Score:2, Insightful)
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:The last thing the world needs is more landmine (Score:5, Insightful)
Case in point: A century ago, there were those who thought the airplane would make war obsolete because neither side would be able to plan attacks without the other side knowing. Then someone put a gun on a defensive plane to shoot down the reconnaisance planes. Then someone else put a gun on an offensive plane to shoot down the defensive planes. Then someone else said "To hell with reconnaisance; let's drop bombs on the enemy." ...and so on.
This strategy, while it means well, will probably lead to the development of anti-personnel land mines that attack approaching soldiers by homing in on the magnetic signature of their weapons... or the farm implement some poor soul is toting across the field after the war.
Re:Smart Mines.. (Score:4, Insightful)
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:who supports land mines ? (Score:3, Insightful)
[A few words to prevent this reply from being all quoted text because, really, what else needs to be said?]
Re:Detection (Score:5, Insightful)
And while he does that, your artillery and tanks blow him up.
Re:Hoppers! (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [cnn.com] have stocks of biological and chemical weapons.
Sure, they're "defensive" but let's be honest. Anthrax is anthrax.
LK
Re:Stupidity density alert! (Score:2, Insightful)
They are. From an american perspective. Remember: Non-american "civilians" are illegal combatants.
Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hoppers! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Feature (Score:5, Insightful)
Or just not make the cursed things to start with?
Re:Hoppers! (Score:5, Insightful)
The NSA contends that nationwide wiretaps are necessary. That doesn't make it so.
That's an immensely selfish position, given the long-term civillian damage landmines have caused. I've been to towns in Cambodia where close to half of the inhabitants were missing limbs from old landmines. I'm given to understand that similar conditions exist in parts of Africa.
The anthrax research is for a vaccine. In order to make a vaccine, you have to make some anthrax. To say the US 'stockpiles bioweapons' in an abuse of both words.
Re:who supports land mines ? (Score:5, Insightful)
How about Unexploded cluster bombs [wikipedia.org]? 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:The last thing the world needs is more landmine (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Hoppers! (Score:4, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Useful for post-war clean up too! (Score:3, Insightful)
Except then you have to worry about undetonated bombs that didn't detonate the mines....
Re:who supports land mines ? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:The last thing the world needs is more landmine (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Useful for post-war clean up too! (Score:3, Insightful)
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:The last thing the world needs is more landmine (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Hoppers! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
This, of course, assumes you're telling the truth: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hoppers! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Useful for post-war clean up too! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:4, Insightful)
MOD UP! (Score:1, Insightful)
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:who supports land mines ? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:The last thing the world needs is more landmine (Score:2, Insightful)
Not at all, the difference being that the Linux kernel has multiple purposes. Weapon systems have only one potential use: killing.
Re:Disgusting (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Stupidity density alert! (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Hoppers! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:who supports land mines ? (Score:3, Insightful)
>> 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.
Enough excuses !!! (Score:4, Insightful)
- 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:who supports land mines ? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Hoppers! (Score:2, Insightful)
Yet there's no one to replace the US.
Why bother? (Score:2, Insightful)
So why not just have every mine emit a clear radio signal? That way you (and the enemy) can have simple mine-field detectors
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).
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:Hoppers! (Score:1, Insightful)
Tell me, how would you feel if someone actually did try to replace the US?
Re:Hoppers! (Score:2, Insightful)
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 [guzer.com]. 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