3 ms·

That's an informative posting. But does it hurt to get about half the landmines by cheap means and do the rest with more thorough methods? That's not a rhetori

That's an informative posting. But does it hurt to get about half the landmines by cheap means and do the rest with more thorough methods? That's not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely interested.

Ntrails 14y ago
The real question is it any cheaper to de-mine 100m^2 with 50 land mines in it, than it is to de-mine the same area with 100. My expectation would say no. This method won't make the land usable safely, so the reality would see a bunch of cheap partial clearances with no real benefit - the areas will still be no go zones.
jontas 14y ago
This is a topic I know next to nothing about, but I have two responses for your question: 1. Is it really useful at all to only clear half the landmines? I would assume the area is still too dangerous to be useful even with only 40% of the landmines remaining. 2. Given #1, it would follow that additional (expensive) land mine clearing technologies would always be needed in addition. I don't know how these work or are billed out, but if the cost is per square mile or some similar area-based unit (instead of say, per mine), then clearing out 60% of the landmines first would not affect the supplemental cost. You've still got to cover the same area to catch the other 40%. Anyway, you've had my disclaimer at the top, and I could be totally wrong about this :) Just some thoughts.
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  I'd expect the there would be a search cost, a removal cost and making safe cost. That the search cost would be lower than the removal cost (less skilled, less dangerous). I'd be extremely surprised to find that a commercial clearing of mines for an area with 40 mines was the same cost as clearing that same area with 400 mines. Equally that clearing a double-sized area with 40 mines was the same cost. Either way you'd reduce costs - reducing search area or reducing removal+disposals needed. [fwiw _djo_ intimated that the increased cost to the process of debris removed any utility such devices might have but also suggested that similar devices are in current commercial use]. With a sandy area I'm wondering how well a dragged scarifier like implement would fair.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
_djo_ 14y ago
That's not a bad question. Thing is the organisations that perform thorough civilian demining already start off with cheaper methods such as mine rollers to get some of the mines, and the ones they use are arguably cheaper to use because they're strong enough to require fewer replacement parts. For instance Mechem has a CASSPIR armoured vehicle with steel wheels that'll happily trundle over anti-personnel mines all day without needing repairs (though anti-tank mines necessitate a wheel change). And as another poster (codebeaker) pointed out, it's also far worse for demining teams to have random shrapnel spread over a minefield, as it makes the job of identifying mines much more difficult. That's one of the reasons why demining teams use systems that are less likely to break and leave pieces on the minefield. So it's unlikely that this product will save any money.

That's an informative posting. But does it hurt to get about half the landmines by cheap means and do the rest with more thorough methods? That's not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely interested.

Ntrails 14y ago

The real question is it any cheaper to de-mine 100m^2 with 50 land mines in it, than it is to de-mine the same area with 100. My expectation would say no. This method won't make the land usable safely, so the reality would see a bunch of cheap partial clearances with no real benefit - the areas will still be no go zones.

jontas 14y ago

This is a topic I know next to nothing about, but I have two responses for your question: 1. Is it really useful at all to only clear half the landmines? I would assume the area is still too dangerous to be useful even with only 40% of the landmines remaining. 2. Given #1, it would follow that additional (expensive) land mine clearing technologies would always be needed in addition. I don't know how these work or are billed out, but if the cost is per square mile or some similar area-based unit (instead of say, per mine), then clearing out 60% of the landmines first would not affect the supplemental cost. You've still got to cover the same area to catch the other 40%. Anyway, you've had my disclaimer at the top, and I could be totally wrong about this :) Just some thoughts.

pbhjpbhj 14y ago
I'd expect the there would be a search cost, a removal cost and making safe cost. That the search cost would be lower than the removal cost (less skilled, less dangerous). I'd be extremely surprised to find that a commercial clearing of mines for an area with 40 mines was the same cost as clearing that same area with 400 mines. Equally that clearing a double-sized area with 40 mines was the same cost. Either way you'd reduce costs - reducing search area or reducing removal+disposals needed. [fwiw _djo_ intimated that the increased cost to the process of debris removed any utility such devices might have but also suggested that similar devices are in current commercial use]. With a sandy area I'm wondering how well a dragged scarifier like implement would fair.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

_djo_ 14y ago

That's not a bad question. Thing is the organisations that perform thorough civilian demining already start off with cheaper methods such as mine rollers to get some of the mines, and the ones they use are arguably cheaper to use because they're strong enough to require fewer replacement parts. For instance Mechem has a CASSPIR armoured vehicle with steel wheels that'll happily trundle over anti-personnel mines all day without needing repairs (though anti-tank mines necessitate a wheel change). And as another poster (codebeaker) pointed out, it's also far worse for demining teams to have random shrapnel spread over a minefield, as it makes the job of identifying mines much more difficult. That's one of the reasons why demining teams use systems that are less likely to break and leave pieces on the minefield. So it's unlikely that this product will save any money.