|
Posted by Ignoramus4546 on March 14, 2006, 1:09 pm
Please log in for more thread options
wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:13:57 GMT, Ignoramus4546
>
>>TMT's question deteriorated into a [somewhat interesting] political
>>discussion, but the question as to what to do techically about IEDs is
>>a very interesting question and very much on topic of this
>>newsgroup. Perhaps, in this sub-thread, we could post our own thoughts
>>as to what could be done to reduce the threat of IEDs.
>>
>>I would like to ask NOT to post any political opinions into this
>>sub-thread.
>>
>>My own thinking is that if about 2,000 miles of roads were made safe
>>from IEDs, the safety of US convoys could be greatly improved. If that
>>could be done by spending $1,000 per every 100 meters, or $16,000 per
>>mile, then securing 2000 miles would cost 32 million dollars. That's
>>really not too much.
>>
>>What can be done for $1,000? A couple of light/IR cameras, solar
>>chargers and batteries, lasers and motion sensors and a transmitter
>>does not seem to be far fetched. It would be stuff similar to what is
>>sold at home depot and x10, only a little more rugged. It does not
>>have to be terribly reliable, as they can be treated as consumables
>>and replaced when it breaks.
>>
>>So... if they set up some motion sensor activated cameras,
>>transmitters etc, then a few computers that receive these
>>transmissions can monitor those 2,000 miles of roads. If activity is
>>detected in any area, it can first of all be marked as "treat with
>>caution and search for mines", and second, maybe photos of suspects
>>could be taken and displayed.
>>
>>That could go quite a long way. Obviously, development of such a
>>project would take some money too, but I think that it is a feasible
>>project.
>>
>>It may be more problematic to do it inside of cities, but still
>>doable.
>>
>>i
> So you take pictures of the tangoes and mail them tickets? Take
> pix fast, because the mean life of those cameras will be minutes.
> Technology is only useful in warfare to the extent that it better
> enables soldiers, sailors or airmen to shoot, move and communicate,
> deliver fire and capture or destroy the enemy.
well, I suppose that a real time warning could be helpful and a
deterrent to those who place IEDs. It would also warn troops of unsafe
areas.
i
|
|
Posted by Don Foreman on March 15, 2006, 2:45 am
Please log in for more thread options
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 18:09:57 GMT, Ignoramus4546
wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:13:57 GMT, Ignoramus4546
>>
>>>TMT's question deteriorated into a [somewhat interesting] political
>>>discussion, but the question as to what to do techically about IEDs is
>>>a very interesting question and very much on topic of this
>>>newsgroup. Perhaps, in this sub-thread, we could post our own thoughts
>>>as to what could be done to reduce the threat of IEDs.
>>>
>>>I would like to ask NOT to post any political opinions into this
>>>sub-thread.
>>>
>>>My own thinking is that if about 2,000 miles of roads were made safe
>>>from IEDs, the safety of US convoys could be greatly improved. If that
>>>could be done by spending $1,000 per every 100 meters, or $16,000 per
>>>mile, then securing 2000 miles would cost 32 million dollars. That's
>>>really not too much.
>>>
>>>What can be done for $1,000? A couple of light/IR cameras, solar
>>>chargers and batteries, lasers and motion sensors and a transmitter
>>>does not seem to be far fetched. It would be stuff similar to what is
>>>sold at home depot and x10, only a little more rugged. It does not
>>>have to be terribly reliable, as they can be treated as consumables
>>>and replaced when it breaks.
>>>
>>>So... if they set up some motion sensor activated cameras,
>>>transmitters etc, then a few computers that receive these
>>>transmissions can monitor those 2,000 miles of roads. If activity is
>>>detected in any area, it can first of all be marked as "treat with
>>>caution and search for mines", and second, maybe photos of suspects
>>>could be taken and displayed.
>>>
>>>That could go quite a long way. Obviously, development of such a
>>>project would take some money too, but I think that it is a feasible
>>>project.
>>>
>>>It may be more problematic to do it inside of cities, but still
>>>doable.
>>>
>>>i
>> So you take pictures of the tangoes and mail them tickets? Take
>> pix fast, because the mean life of those cameras will be minutes.
>
>
>> Technology is only useful in warfare to the extent that it better
>> enables soldiers, sailors or airmen to shoot, move and communicate,
>> deliver fire and capture or destroy the enemy.
>
>well, I suppose that a real time warning could be helpful and a
>deterrent to those who place IEDs. It would also warn troops of unsafe
>areas.
>
>i
Combat troops know what areas are unsafe. There are no safe areas in
a combat zone infested with tangos. Unfortunate and regrettable
events sometimes happen in such an sit because tangos don't wear
badges. Shit happens in a theatre of operations.
Read it again, Ig: "Technology is only useful in warfare....." I
speak as both a technopuke and a vet. Technology can be useful if
applied or devised by practitioners who have learned tactics by
experience. It is otherwise usually a waste of taxpayer money.
|
|
Posted by B.B. on March 14, 2006, 2:46 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>TMT's question deteriorated into a [somewhat interesting] political
>discussion, but the question as to what to do techically about IEDs is
>a very interesting question and very much on topic of this
>newsgroup. Perhaps, in this sub-thread, we could post our own thoughts
>as to what could be done to reduce the threat of IEDs.
[...cameras and sensors....]
Probably a lot more effective and durable to build a four-lane paved
road so nobody can bury anything in it, then pay locals to keep it swept
and maintained. Driving down the center would keep the vehicles far
enough from any blasts on the edges of the road to reduce the damage.
Plus you'll have a paved road to leave the locals when finished.
In bad areas make it policy--and tell everyone beforehand--to blow
away any suspicious piles at the edges of the roads.
Sink rigid posts along the sides of the road every so often so anyone
trying to drive a car bomb into a convoy would have to aim for a gap and
approach at a near-90-degree angle. Makes it easier to pick 'em off
before they get too close.
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net
|
|
Posted by AndrewV on March 14, 2006, 3:11 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> TMT's question deteriorated into a [somewhat interesting] political
> discussion, but the question as to what to do techically about IEDs is
> a very interesting question and very much on topic of this
> newsgroup. Perhaps, in this sub-thread, we could post our own thoughts
> as to what could be done to reduce the threat of IEDs.
>
OK I'll bite , What if you sprayed some kind of dye on the roadside every
few days. something that colors the ground, it would alert you to fresh
digging so you get a better idea of where to focus. you could have
different colors or types (dyes that only show up with IR light ect.) and
rotate there use to deter false application. It won't stop the planting of
the IED's but it might alert you to them and reduce damage.
Let the fray begin
Andrew
|
|
Posted by Hawke on March 14, 2006, 11:59 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> TMT's question deteriorated into a [somewhat interesting] political
> discussion, but the question as to what to do techically about IEDs is
> a very interesting question and very much on topic of this
> newsgroup. Perhaps, in this sub-thread, we could post our own thoughts
> as to what could be done to reduce the threat of IEDs.
>
> I would like to ask NOT to post any political opinions into this
> sub-thread.
>
> My own thinking is that if about 2,000 miles of roads were made safe
> from IEDs, the safety of US convoys could be greatly improved. If that
> could be done by spending $1,000 per every 100 meters, or $16,000 per
> mile, then securing 2000 miles would cost 32 million dollars. That's
> really not too much.
>
> What can be done for $1,000? A couple of light/IR cameras, solar
> chargers and batteries, lasers and motion sensors and a transmitter
> does not seem to be far fetched. It would be stuff similar to what is
> sold at home depot and x10, only a little more rugged. It does not
> have to be terribly reliable, as they can be treated as consumables
> and replaced when it breaks.
>
> So... if they set up some motion sensor activated cameras,
> transmitters etc, then a few computers that receive these
> transmissions can monitor those 2,000 miles of roads. If activity is
> detected in any area, it can first of all be marked as "treat with
> caution and search for mines", and second, maybe photos of suspects
> could be taken and displayed.
>
> That could go quite a long way. Obviously, development of such a
> project would take some money too, but I think that it is a feasible
> project.
>
> It may be more problematic to do it inside of cities, but still
> doable.
>
> i
Nothing wrong with your idea but it's not really practical. The problem we
are facing with the IEDs in Iraq is a classic example of measure and
countermeasure that is the cornerstone of warfare. As such there is no way
for a long term win in this conflict. Everything we do, and I mean
everything, can and will be countered by a clever enemy. As we have already
learned, the insurgents are indeed smart so you must expect that no matter
what we do they will find ways to beat it.
There is only one reason why the insurgents are using IEDs in the first
place. They can't fight our forces head to head. Their solution to that is
to use bombs of all stripes to inflict damage to our troops instead of
actually fighting us. If we could stop that they would just come up with
some other way to hit us. The point is they have only one way to win against
us and that is by the good old "death of a thousand cuts" strategy. The use
of IEDs allows them to bleed us day by day. They will not stop until we have
had enough and call it quits. So there is really no solution to that problem
aside from pulling out. Of course, by now everyone knows that's exactly what
we are going to do but it's only a matter of when. As such we have gotten
into a return to the Vietnam days when nobody wants to be killed in a war we
know we are losing and are going to pull out from. Just like in that war, in
this one all the troops will find themselves doing everything to avoid being
killed instead of aggressively fighting the enemy. Which only adds to our
problems. Ultimately, we have to acknowledge we made a mistake and then
rectify it by leaving Iraq to the Iraqis. The question is how long do we
keep up a policy that doesn't work before admitting our mistake and changing
the policy.
Hawke
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Re: OT - IEDs | March 14, 2006, 12:07 am |
| Re: OT - IEDs | March 14, 2006, 12:09 am |
| Re: OT - IEDs | March 14, 2006, 12:14 am |
| Re: OT - IEDs | March 14, 2006, 12:21 am |
| Re: OT - IEDs | March 14, 2006, 3:15 am |
| Re: OT - IEDs | March 14, 2006, 7:31 am |
| Re: OT - IEDs | March 14, 2006, 7:35 am |
| Re: OT - IEDs | March 14, 2006, 11:20 am |
| Re: OT - IEDs | March 15, 2006, 1:02 am |
| Re: OT - IEDs | March 16, 2006, 7:09 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
>