Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Loren Pechtel · 01-30-2003, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by slept2long
Coleman,I ain't gonna argue with you 'cause I can sense the futility of such in your post. I do wonder how you feel about clearing the fields you laid or laying them more carefully. Should those who lay mines clean them up when they are no longer useful? Do you think this policy would encourage people to find alternatives to mines instead of having to clean them up or do you think people might just make excuses to keep forces in need of mine defense in the area longer.

Sooner or later they would have to clean them up anyway.

Besides, cleaning up marked and charted fields isn't that big a problem. Dealing with a mine is no big deal. Finding it is the big deal.

Loren Pechtel · 01-30-2003, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
Define "currently", we littered Iraq with the damn things and never made any attempt to go and clean them up!

(btw people here do know what airfield denial weapons do don't they?)

Amen-Moses

The real airfield denial weapons are cratering bombs.

I do agree stuff is scattered to make it harder to repair. However, those are on the surface--what's the big deal? Iraq shouldn't have had any difficulty cleaning them up.

echidna · 01-30-2003, 04:57 PM

http://www.uspid.dsi.unimi.it/procee.../nardulli.html

Trends in landmine warfare and landmine detection
Giuseppe Nardulli
Physics Department and Center for Peace Research, University of Bari,
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sez. di Bari, Via Amendola 176, 70126 Bari, Italy.

Quote:

A built in self destruct device will be probably necessary in the future to meet the requirements of the Geneva Convention. Technology of self destructing devices is in fact not difficult to achieve, since a battery can be a simple way to control the mine life. The problem of costs is however open and might be a relevant obstacle to the spreading of this new standard.

There are however other options to control the time of service of the laid landmines. One of the alternative solutions is the so-called ``programmable laid life'' mines. This means that they should have some sophisticated electronics by which the life of the laid mine can be predetermined. In principle these mines might be recovered after the expiry of the programmed life and used again, but this option might be extremely costly. Some programmable laid life mines are presently produced , for example a nonmetallic model from the Italian company Valsella is already available.

Another electronic facility that might be introduced in mines is the so-called ``switch on switch off'' options. This means that these particular mines might be switched off, if necessary, to allow the passage of friendly troops. There are however serious difficulties to the realization and adoption of this innovation: high costs of production; risk of damage to the same mines when the minefield is turned off and used by friendly troops; the existence of electronic key for remote control which can become accessible by enemy. All that makes the ``switch on switch off'' facility not much useful from a military point of view.

The primary objection to landmines (as with gas, biological weapons, etc) will always be the indiscriminate way they kill, the way they inevitably leave behind such a long-lasting ongoing tragedy on the remaining civilians who should in reality be receiving every assistance to rebuild.

In this new age of warfare where so much money is spent on smart weapons & improved targeting systems, conventional landmines and cluster bombs are as archaic and unnecessarily brutal to civilians as would be carpet bombing.

If cost were the only driver, then chemical agents are by far the most cost-effective weapon and yet we baulk on humanitarian grounds.

Coleman Smith · 01-30-2003, 05:20 PM

slept2long said, �I do wonder how you feel about clearing the fields you laid or laying them more carefully. Should those who lay mines clean them up when they are no longer useful? Do you think this policy would encourage people to find alternatives to mines instead of having to clean them up or do you think people might just make excuses to keep forces in need of mine defense in the area longer.�

1. The mines are usually laid by engineering battalions and they have the obligation to clear them. I understand that there are some commercial operators who will do this on contract.

2. I have no problem with clearing the minefields with the full use of the mine clearing equipment.

3. I don�t know what the alternatives to mines might be. I see no reason to replace a technology that is cheap and effective.

I do favor the use of self-destructing mines.

The models that I have seen proposed have a chemical detonator that that degrades over time until the mine explodes. I do not have information on how successful they are or the cost to benefit ratio.

The use of self-destructing mines reduces the necessity to remove them. As with any device like this would be some unknown rate of failure which might create a problem.

The use of self-destructing mines might mute some, but not all, of the objections to them.

Coleman Smith

slept2long · 01-31-2003, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
The only place we currently use minefields is the DMZ.

Alright, I was wondering the extent of there use within our arsenal.

Quote:

A wall is going to make one bit of difference?!?! How long is it going to last against tanks? Or even satchel charges?

Last time I checked tanks ain't firing salvo's daily in the DMZ. It seems to me that the DMZ is the fence that keeps the enemies seperated. Wouldn't a wall keep them just as seprerated? Because if the North attacked the South wouldn't the U.S. get all Sodom and Gamorah on them?
Is the mine field really keeping them in there place?

Quote:

Simple--don't leave them behind! Chart your fields and clean them up when you are done.

I think this may be the better answer for now considering the lack of alternative to an eternal standoff.

slept2long · 01-31-2003, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
The point of minefields is to slow down the enemy. That's the whole point of our defense on the DMZ--slow down NK so we have time to get enough force over there to stop them.

So IF they attack it will slow them down but if we don't have the mine fields then if they attack we may take more casualties but will still blow the bajeezus out of them eventually? Is that an oversimplification? Isn't the fact that the U.S. will intervene if the North gets out of line a detterent?

Quote:

As for anti-tank helicopters--it's an area under the SAM umbrella of the north. Choppers better not stick their head above a hill until the SAM's have been knocked out--and by then you've been overrun. The Hellfires will get some but not enough to make much difference. Also, the number of spots to fire from will be limited (the only way to survive against the SAM's is to peek over a hill) and the range of 8" artillery exceeds the range of the Hellfire. That could make life mighty unpleasant for the choppers--the NK's would know the terrain and could fuse the shells to go off near the choppers.

As for ground based defenses--they'll do very little. While they are hardened enough the artillery bombardment won't kill too many they won't be in a position to stick their heads up to fire. Artillery is very effective at making infantry keep it's heads down. VT fused they can keep firing until the defending bunkers are overrun by the tanks.

Thanks for the lesson in military tactics. Now I see how my strategy is useless in that situation.

slept2long · 01-31-2003, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Sooner or later they would have to clean them up anyway.

Besides, cleaning up marked and charted fields isn't that big a problem. Dealing with a mine is no big deal. Finding it is the big deal.

Perhaps instead of a ban on mines, for now, the U.N. pass a resolution to make all users of mines become pro-active in locating and destroying them.

slept2long · 01-31-2003, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Coleman Smith

1. The mines are usually laid by engineering battalions and they have the obligation to clear them. I understand that there are some commercial operators who will do this on contract.

So there is an obligation to clear them.
Nice to hear that.

Quote:

2. I have no problem with clearing the minefields with the full use of the mine clearing equipment.

Agreed.

Quote:

3. I don�t know what the alternatives to mines might be. I see no reason to replace a technology that is cheap and effective.

I do favor the use of self-destructing mines.

I guess we're not in disagreement much.

Quote:

The models that I have seen proposed have a chemical detonator that that degrades over time until the mine explodes. I do not have information on how successful they are or the cost to benefit ratio.

The use of self-destructing mines reduces the necessity to remove them. As with any device like this would be some unknown rate of failure which might create a problem.

The use of self-destructing mines might mute some, but not all, of the objections to them.

I guess the rate of failure would be an important factor to consider when comparing the risks of expirable vs. non-expirable mines. Since we don't know that yet I guess that leaves us in the dark on the issue.

Loren Pechtel · 01-31-2003, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Coleman Smith
The models that I have seen proposed have a chemical detonator that that degrades over time until the mine explodes. I do not have information on how successful they are or the cost to benefit ratio.

The use of self-destructing mines reduces the necessity to remove them. As with any device like this would be some unknown rate of failure which might create a problem.

The use of self-destructing mines might mute some, but not all, of the objections to them.[/B]

If the self-destruct were set up to degrade the trigger over time (I have no knowledge of what's actually done) then any mine that didn't self-destruct would presumably also be a dud.

To make it more sure, put a second piece on the trigger that's much more easily eroded. It's a safety that keeps the mine from going off until it has eroded. That way if the chemical is missing or the like the mine is also a dud.

Loren Pechtel · 01-31-2003, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by slept2long
Last time I checked tanks ain't firing salvo's daily in the DMZ. It seems to me that the DMZ is the fence that keeps the enemies seperated. Wouldn't a wall keep them just as seprerated? Because if the North attacked the South wouldn't the U.S. get all Sodom and Gamorah on them?
Is the mine field really keeping them in there place?

Minefields are force amplifiers, not forces by themselves. They slow down the enemy and make it easier to kill him.

The issue is not to keep out infiltrators--they come by tunnel or by sea. The issue is to slow down the big rush if the north decides to go back to a hot war instead of a cold one. Slowing them down means more time for our artillery to pound them (and infantry in the open is about the #1 target of artillery) and give more time for us to send reinforcements.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-30-2003, 05:20 PM	#34
Coleman Smith Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: In real time. Posts: 789	slept2long said, �I do wonder how you feel about clearing the fields you laid or laying them more carefully. Should those who lay mines clean them up when they are no longer useful? Do you think this policy would encourage people to find alternatives to mines instead of having to clean them up or do you think people might just make excuses to keep forces in need of mine defense in the area longer.� 1. The mines are usually laid by engineering battalions and they have the obligation to clear them. I understand that there are some commercial operators who will do this on contract. 2. I have no problem with clearing the minefields with the full use of the mine clearing equipment. 3. I don�t know what the alternatives to mines might be. I see no reason to replace a technology that is cheap and effective. I do favor the use of self-destructing mines. The models that I have seen proposed have a chemical detonator that that degrades over time until the mine explodes. I do not have information on how successful they are or the cost to benefit ratio. The use of self-destructing mines reduces the necessity to remove them. As with any device like this would be some unknown rate of failure which might create a problem. The use of self-destructing mines might mute some, but not all, of the objections to them. Coleman Smith

01-31-2003, 02:35 PM	#40
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Originally posted by slept2long Last time I checked tanks ain't firing salvo's daily in the DMZ. It seems to me that the DMZ is the fence that keeps the enemies seperated. Wouldn't a wall keep them just as seprerated? Because if the North attacked the South wouldn't the U.S. get all Sodom and Gamorah on them? Is the mine field really keeping them in there place? Minefields are force amplifiers, not forces by themselves. They slow down the enemy and make it easier to kill him. The issue is not to keep out infiltrators--they come by tunnel or by sea. The issue is to slow down the big rush if the north decides to go back to a hot war instead of a cold one. Slowing them down means more time for our artillery to pound them (and infantry in the open is about the #1 target of artillery) and give more time for us to send reinforcements.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.