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.

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! [darpa.mil]

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!

[Ohreally_factor]

iHOP landmines?

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

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!

[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!

[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!

[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 [fas.org]

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!

[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]

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 whe

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 [cnn.com] have stocks of biological and chemical weapons.

Sur

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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[geminidomino]

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

This...

[denmarkw00t]

is going to make Metal Gear Solid much more difficult

I must say

[ScrewMaster]

Mines that move? That is goddamn frightening.

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).

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.

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

[geobeck]

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

Case in point: A century ago, there were those who thought the airplane would make war obsolete because neither side would be able to plan attacks without the other side knowing. Then someone put a gun on a defensive plane to shoot down the reconnaisance planes. Then someone else put a gun on an offensive plane to shoot down the defensive planes. Then someone else said "To hell with reconnaisance; let's drop bombs on the enemy." ...and so on.

This strategy, while it means well, will probably lead to the development of anti-personnel land mines that attack approaching soldiers by homing in on the magnetic signature of their weapons... or the farm implement some poor soul is toting across the field after the war.

Re: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.

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

[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

[Frogbert]

Care to put it on sourceforge?

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

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?

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.

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

[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: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.

Re:The last thing the world needs is more landmine

[Saeger]

self-deactivating timers in a few months, with explosives that decay in a few years, and casings that bio-degrade in a few decades would be better. (for the winners)

Nah, costs too much.

"I'll take 100,000 dumb-mines for my $10mil, instead of only 50,000 'treehugger' mines"

Re: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.

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 [youtube.com]

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

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?

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.

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.

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: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.

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: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

[NaDrew]

a big field of mines all chatting together

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

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 [wikipedia.org]. 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 ?

[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 [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: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 cit

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 g

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 ?

[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 change

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 shoul

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 ?

[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 ?

[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 [usatoday.com] => 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 ?

[geminidomino]

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

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 ?

[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 [infoplease.com]. 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

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.

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: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.

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...

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?"

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!"

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 [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].

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.

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.

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.

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.

If they can move...

[Deadstick]

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

rj

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...

[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 mine

Developed from the Sandia hopper

[Animats]

This started with the Sandia spherical hopper [sandia.gov]. "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.

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?

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 [google.com]?

Or just not make the cursed things to start with?

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)

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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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 [gbgm-umc.org], 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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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]

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: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..

[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.

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: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

[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 d

Re:Sounds like a good border control solution!

[geminidomino]

Yep, because so many illegal immigrants are crossing the border in fucking tanks...