• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Future soldier technology (modified thread)

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,014
Reaction score
96
Smart land mines could certainly stop vehicular suicide bombers rushing checkpoints.
Personally, I suspect that choke points and obstacles which prevent any vehicle, friend or unfriendly rushing your check point is a much better idea than having a series of mines under the traffic. It means you can move your checkpoint more easily and you won't be leaving an IED behind that the enemy can steal.
 
Last edited:

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
493
Reaction score
157
Personally, I suspect that choke points and obstacles which prevent any vehicle, friend or unfriendly rushing your check point is a much better idea than having a series of minds under the traffic. It means you can move your checkpoint more easily and you won't be leaving an IED behind that the enemy can steal.
Mobile smart mine.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,014
Reaction score
96
Personally, I suspect that choke points and obstacles which prevent any vehicle, friend or unfriendly rushing your check point is a much better idea than having a series of minds under the traffic. It means you can move your checkpoint more easily and you won't be leaving an IED behind that the enemy can steal.
Mobile smart mine.
Which can be stolen. The Vietnamese were particularly adept at stealing mines from under the noses of US and Allied armies. What is to prevent a new threat doing the same to these mines?
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
493
Reaction score
157
Personally, I suspect that choke points and obstacles which prevent any vehicle, friend or unfriendly rushing your check point is a much better idea than having a series of minds under the traffic. It means you can move your checkpoint more easily and you won't be leaving an IED behind that the enemy can steal.
Mobile smart mine.
Which can be stolen. The Vietnamese were particularly adept at stealing mines from under the noses of US and Allied armies. What is to prevent a new threat doing the same to these mines?
The fact that it will go off in their face unless remotely disabled.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,014
Reaction score
96
Personally, I suspect that choke points and obstacles which prevent any vehicle, friend or unfriendly rushing your check point is a much better idea than having a series of minds under the traffic. It means you can move your checkpoint more easily and you won't be leaving an IED behind that the enemy can steal.
Mobile smart mine.
Which can be stolen. The Vietnamese were particularly adept at stealing mines from under the noses of US and Allied armies. What is to prevent a new threat doing the same to these mines?
The fact that it will go off in their face unless remotely disabled.
That was the threat faced by the Viet Cong. Didn't stop them from trying and all too often succeeding. The M16 APers mine was a favourite for use against the Australians in Phuoc Tuy province - removed all too often from the barrier minefield which they set up.
 
Last edited:

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
493
Reaction score
157
That was the threat faced by the Viet Cong. Didn't stop them from trying and all too often succeeding. The M16 APers mine was a favourite for use against the Australians in Phuoc Tuy province - removed all too often from the barrier minefield which they set up.
No, it really wasn't. The technology was completely different. IMS will not wait for the Viet Cong to begin tampering, it will go off as soon as they are within range, there is no tripwire.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,014
Reaction score
96
That was the threat faced by the Viet Cong. Didn't stop them from trying and all too often succeeding. The M16 APers mine was a favourite for use against the Australians in Phuoc Tuy province - removed all too often from the barrier minefield which they set up.
No, it really wasn't. The technology was completely different. IMS will not wait for the Viet Cong to begin tampering, it will go off as soon as they are within range, there is no tripwire.
And that will protect animals/children/civilians? How? It is a myth that makes the mines safer. It makes them much more dangerous. How are they going to act with constant traffic?
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
493
Reaction score
157
And that will protect animals/children/civilians? How? It is a myth that makes the mines safer. It makes them much more dangerous. How are they going to act with constant traffic?
Civilians and children would likely obey commands to stop. Animals it can distinguish from humans and definitely from vehicles. There will be a remote override for operators too however.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
414
Looked it up:

Set up by East Germany to prevent people climbing over fences and escaping to West Germany.
First fielded in 1970, the mines were cone-shaped, tripwire activated, and mounted to concrete posts along the line of climb-resistant prefabricated steel mesh fence. In some cases, they were mounted directly to the fence itself. They were aimed parallel with the fence line, and intended to kill or incapacitate anyone attempting to climb or cut through the fence
Old fashioned, traditional mine activated by mechanical shaking of the fence which of course meant birds or wind could trigger it.

This is an argument against smart mines? If you are opposed to mines per se (and don't care that enemies can do what they want), then a smart mine makes them more acceptable in the same way a smart bomb makes bombing acceptable. Of course its a bit late to be campaigning against smart bombs.

With acoustic and inertial sensors, it should be possible to distinguish the nature of the source and distance of a disturbance by measuring frequency signature and amplitude. This being the age of networking, all the data collected by all the mines could also be analyzed and transmitted to human overseers to verify what is happening. In other words, smart mines make them usable where dumb mines can't.
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,564
Reaction score
331
I was thinking more of a cavalier disregard for human life, military or civilian.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
414
Define cavalier.
"Uncaring". Personally I am more concerned as to the long-term effects during an occupation on my own occupation forces security.

Definition in terms of mines.

Cavalier
Placing mines next to a school yard


Not Cavalier
Placing mines on a border with a hostile country and relocating any civilians in the area.


With miniaturized sensors and satellite relays, clearing a field of smart mines may be best left to MICLIC or an EMP charge. All the MEMs based technology that arose from cell phones and video games will force mine clearing up the chain in terms of counter measures.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,014
Reaction score
96
Unless you cover your minefield with surveillance it will be subject to enemy infiltration. Even with surveillance it will likely be subject to enemy infiltration. In either case, the enemy will attempt to disarm and steal the mines. Such acts can be quite simple - a man or woman worming their way into the mine, finding a mine and inserting a piece of wire to prevent the mine going off and then removing it for their own use. The Germans in WWII had double and triple stacked AT mines and mines surrounded by S-mines to try and prevent the easy disarming of mines. It didn't.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
414
Of course the enemy will still try to infiltrate. But for the common soldiers and even those trained to deal with mines, it will be a lot harder. Simple techniques like you describe are the very thing a smart mine won't allow. Stacking dumb mines is not an analog to a smart mine. What is an analog is every military field where a "smart" device is introduced and forces changes in tactics.

Unilateral renouncement of specific weapons doesn't eliminate them. It simply becomes an asymmetric advantage for the enemy. They certainly are not debating this issue.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,014
Reaction score
96
The proposal is to use these "smart" mines to protect a checkpoint. Checkpoints are by necessity busy places with a large number of people and vehicles. This not where a "smart" mine would be useful IMO. It is congested and it won't be able to differentiate between enemy combatants and civilians. This is not the environment where you would use mines, "smart" or dumb.

Renouncement of certain weapons doesn't come into it. What comes into is common sense and a rational deployment of weapons that are best suited to defending a check point. What is required is chokepoints and obstacles. Cheap and effective and not prone to exploding at the wrong time or being stolen.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
414
The proposal is to use these "smart" mines to protect a checkpoint. Checkpoints are by necessity busy places with a large number of people and vehicles. This not where a "smart" mine would be useful IMO. It is congested and it won't be able to differentiate between enemy combatants and civilians. This is not the environment where you would use mines, "smart" or dumb.

Renouncement of certain weapons doesn't come into it. What comes into is common sense and a rational deployment of weapons that are best suited to defending a check point. What is required is chokepoints and obstacles. Cheap and effective and not prone to exploding at the wrong time or being stolen.

That begs the question: is there any application where you think mines make the most sense?
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,564
Reaction score
331
What comes into is common sense and a rational deployment of weapons that are best suited to defending a check point. What is required is chokepoints and obstacles. Cheap and effective and not prone to exploding at the wrong time or being stolen.
From a purely pragmatic point of view on the use of mines at checkpoints: "C’est pire qu’un crime, c’est une faute" - It is worse than a crime, it is a mistake - Antoine Claude Joseph Boulay de la Meurthe - 1804

If you want to consider the ethics of the use of anti-personnel mines, you might have a look at the Ottawa Treaty and the way it came into being; it has been signed and ratified or acceded to by 164 nations so far.

It has been discussed to death on various websites. If you want to discuss this, a separate topic in The Bar would be in order. I will not be joining here, but if the subject comes up on another site - who knows.

1280px-Ottawa_Treaty_members.svg.png
 
Last edited:

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
414
As long as the countries in grey make mines, they are part of real world military technology and not a subject for the bar. Unless you wish to appoint yourself as Hall Monitor.

I wasn't aware anyone had mines back in 1804. I guess its possible but just based on technology, they would have been pretty crude. Or are you using a quote just because you want to use it as a comment?
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,564
Reaction score
331
Boulay de la Meurthe's quote referred to the abduction and subsequent execution of the Duc d'Enghien in 1804 by Napoleontist France. It directly led to Russian Tsar Alexander I going to war against France.
To Boulay de la Meurthe, the ethical and legal consequences need not be considered when observing the utter lack of strategic sense of the abduction and execution - that alone should have been enough to leave the Duke in peace.

In the same way I would argue that placing smart land mines in the middle of friendly traffic is such a bad idea, from the public relations point of view, as well as from the point of view of safety of your own forces, the ethical and legal consequences need not come into play. Operational considerations.

Land mines have been around for centuries in Europe, even earlier in China:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_mine#Europe_and_the_United_States - but that was not the point

This is a thread about technology. It think the ethics of the use of land mines warrant their own thread.
 
Last edited:

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
414
Smart Mines go where any other mine would: borders with hostile countries, perimeters of military bases, enemy troop paths, etc etc. Having a mine you can arm/disarm remotely and rapidly in response to dynamic situations seems like a plus.

I have no problem discussing just the technology and application of smart mines. But I do respond when someone objects to them for simply existing. If said people want to shift their criticisms to a topic in The Bar, that's fine.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,014
Reaction score
96
That begs the question: is there any application where you think mines make the most sense?
"Smart" mines perhaps, in a barrier which is under direct observation and patrolled by security forces. Dumb mines in a similar situation. However as the map has shown my own country has signed the Ottawa convention. Our experiences with mines have not been good as I have related. We built a barrier mine field in Phouc Tuy Province in South Vietnam and handed over its security to the local forces rather than patrolling it ourselves. They let the NLF in and the NLF stole mines and used them against Australian forces causing numerous casualties. We have learnt hard lessons from that experience. We ended up dismantling the minefield because of the dangers associated with it. Mines are dangerous to the miners as much to the mined.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
414
Everything that goes bang is dangerous and can be used against you. Ammunition stockpiles transferred to a corrupt government will likely wind up in an IED. But again this is arguing over the existence of the thing and not its use.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,014
Reaction score
96
Everything that goes bang is dangerous and can be used against you. Ammunition stockpiles transferred to a corrupt government will likely wind up in an IED. But again this is arguing over the existence of the thing and not its use.
What I am suggesting is that this use is pointless, for the reasons already provided. You have a touching faith in technology for some reason. There is always a smart insurgent who will work out a way to neutralise it. It is fair easier (and cheaper) to simply throw up an obstacle or a chokepoint rather than risk civilians being killed by your supposedly "smart" mine. Remember, the role of an occupation force is to win the hearts and minds of the occupied population and blowing them up won't do that.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
414
What I am suggesting is that this use is pointless, for the reasons already provided. You have a touching faith in technology for some reason. There is always a smart insurgent who will work out a way to neutralise it. It is fair easier (and cheaper) to simply throw up an obstacle or a chokepoint rather than risk civilians being killed by your supposedly "smart" mine. Remember, the role of an occupation force is to win the hearts and minds of the occupied population and blowing them up won't do that.
You agree that you see mines are useless. That is an argument over their existence.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,014
Reaction score
96
What I am suggesting is that this use is pointless, for the reasons already provided. You have a touching faith in technology for some reason. There is always a smart insurgent who will work out a way to neutralise it. It is fair easier (and cheaper) to simply throw up an obstacle or a chokepoint rather than risk civilians being killed by your supposedly "smart" mine. Remember, the role of an occupation force is to win the hearts and minds of the occupied population and blowing them up won't do that.
You agree that you see mines are useless. That is an argument over their existence.
You cannot have a discussion about mines without their utility coming into question. :rolleyes:
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
414
There is no discussion if all you ever say is that mines should be banned. Every post will be just a variation of "stop". As your compatriot suggested, you can open a thread in The Bar on the topic of banning mines (in the West because no country outside the West cares).
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,564
Reaction score
331
Kadijaman lives in Australia, I am from the Netherlands. We are not compatriots. I am perfectly willing to offer operational considerations about the use of land mines here, as I have done before. The ethics of their use , in my view, belong in a thread of their own. YMMV.
 
Last edited:

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,564
Reaction score
331
Are we using the same dictionary?
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
414
Are we using the same dictionary?

Indeed. If you read beyond a single sentence internet definition you will find it is also used to denote "companion" or "colleague".

So as long as we are at it, I am American and I grew up speaking English.
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,564
Reaction score
331
I'm still willing to offer operational considerations of land mine use.
There is no discussion if all you ever say is that mines should be banned.
He doesn't. It is what, at a stretch, could be inferred from me mentioning the Ottawa Treaty, but it would be unjust to state that is Kadijaman's position. It might be. Ask him. In another thread, I would prefer, as this is a thread about technology, in a forum about technology. Again - YMMV.
As your compatriot suggested, you can open a thread in The Bar on the topic of banning mines (in the West because no country outside the West cares).
The South cares: all of South America, most of Africa, most of South East Asia.
I'd say Japan qualifies as East, with Australia and New Zealand qualifying as 'honourary' West though I would hesitate to address the people there that way to their faces.

Compatriot - most of my dealings with Anglophones are with Brits and Irishmen, I don't recall any of them using the word in the way you are using it. Can I suggest comrade? It doesn't have quite the same connotations on this side of the Atlantic. Ireland, the USA and the UK - countries divided by the same language :)

This is all going frightfully off-topic, by the way.
 
Last edited:

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
414
I asked point blank if there was any use he considered legitimate. He first mentioned a barrier mine but then winds up again at any general use as bad. He did not clarify when I raised this and then you jumped in and here we are.
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,564
Reaction score
331
The proposal is to use these "smart" mines to protect a checkpoint. Checkpoints are by necessity busy places with a large number of people and vehicles. This not where a "smart" mine would be useful IMO. It is congested and it won't be able to differentiate between enemy combatants and civilians. This is not the environment where you would use mines, "smart" or dumb.

Renouncement of certain weapons doesn't come into it. What comes into is common sense and a rational deployment of weapons that are best suited to defending a check point. What is required is chokepoints and obstacles. Cheap and effective and not prone to exploding at the wrong time or being stolen.

That begs the question: is there any application where you think mines make the most sense?
You asked 'where you think mines make the most sense'. Legitimate is another matter. Making sense covers a lot of considerations - legal/illegal, ethical/unethical, practical/impractical.
 
Top