3 ms·

Your argument hinges on the statement "The field will be used anyway." As people are not binary in their decision making. The arguments of others that partial d

Your argument hinges on the statement "The field will be used anyway." As people are not binary in their decision making. The arguments of others that partial demining will increase the likely hood of use and thus increase the risk of harm is completely valid.

pbhjpbhj 14y ago
I'm responding to a universal claim by indicating a single instance in which the claim would be wrong, falsification basically. My argument is that those saying this is useless appear to be going against evidence that it has - whilst limited - genuine utility. The argument for partial demining leading to increased harm requires that land that is mined remain completely unused otherwise or be completely demined. As soon as there is any use then reducing the number of mines statistically [and yes maybe simplistically] will be better - which would you rather, walk across a field of 200 mines or 400 mines? Professionally demined areas are only cleared to a level of about 99.6% according to the thread so the argument for increased risk of harm still works in that case - more risk from mines when walking in a 'completely' demined area than in an area in which mines have never been placed.
- bathat 14y ago
  >I'm responding to a universal claim by indicating a single instance in which the claim would be wrong, falsification basically. My argument is that those saying this is useless appear to be going against evidence that it has - whilst limited - genuine utility. Congratulations, you have imagined an instance where the this device can be used. The constraints you have imposed are: that the land comprising the minefield must be used and will be used regardless of whether the mines are cleared; that there is no predetermined upper bound of what constitutes acceptable civilian casualties; that the cost of subsequent de-mining is immaterial (e.g., when the local population decides that maybe 50% wasn't good enough after all); that the terrain is suitably flat for the Kafon; and that the extant vegetation will not interfere with it. Now, does the scenario you imagined actually exist in the real world? Or is this purely an exercise in mental masturbation? I would suggest that the scenario you imagine is not one that is common in the real world. Afghanistan is not the first place where mines have been used, and yet there don't seem to be many farmers in Vietnam or Cambodia re-purposing known, uncleared minefields. Almost all civilian mine casualties seem to be the result of people using areas where they thought there were no mines. My take-away from _djo_'s comments is that the Mine Kafon primary effect will be to make it very cheap and very easy to create large areas where people believe there are "no" mines, and that is a problem. In engineering it is often true that a general solution is preferred to one which only works in special cases. The Mine Kafon seems to be, when viewed in the most charitable light, a very special-purpose solution which adds no value above the general solution. Viewed in a more balanced way, the Mine Kafon is a solution in search of a problem[1]. User _djo_ seems to be saying that, there are already tools which do what the Mine Kafon does, and they minimize not just the economic cost to the de-mining organization but also the human cost to the local population. [1] Do you recall the article several days ago by Paul Graham about how to find good start-up ideas? One thing I took away from that discussion is that you should try to find solutions to existing problems instead of looking for problems that fit your existing solution.

pbhjpbhj 14y ago

I'm responding to a universal claim by indicating a single instance in which the claim would be wrong, falsification basically. My argument is that those saying this is useless appear to be going against evidence that it has - whilst limited - genuine utility. The argument for partial demining leading to increased harm requires that land that is mined remain completely unused otherwise or be completely demined. As soon as there is any use then reducing the number of mines statistically [and yes maybe simplistically] will be better - which would you rather, walk across a field of 200 mines or 400 mines? Professionally demined areas are only cleared to a level of about 99.6% according to the thread so the argument for increased risk of harm still works in that case - more risk from mines when walking in a 'completely' demined area than in an area in which mines have never been placed.

bathat 14y ago
>I'm responding to a universal claim by indicating a single instance in which the claim would be wrong, falsification basically. My argument is that those saying this is useless appear to be going against evidence that it has - whilst limited - genuine utility. Congratulations, you have imagined an instance where the this device can be used. The constraints you have imposed are: that the land comprising the minefield must be used and will be used regardless of whether the mines are cleared; that there is no predetermined upper bound of what constitutes acceptable civilian casualties; that the cost of subsequent de-mining is immaterial (e.g., when the local population decides that maybe 50% wasn't good enough after all); that the terrain is suitably flat for the Kafon; and that the extant vegetation will not interfere with it. Now, does the scenario you imagined actually exist in the real world? Or is this purely an exercise in mental masturbation? I would suggest that the scenario you imagine is not one that is common in the real world. Afghanistan is not the first place where mines have been used, and yet there don't seem to be many farmers in Vietnam or Cambodia re-purposing known, uncleared minefields. Almost all civilian mine casualties seem to be the result of people using areas where they thought there were no mines. My take-away from _djo_'s comments is that the Mine Kafon primary effect will be to make it very cheap and very easy to create large areas where people believe there are "no" mines, and that is a problem. In engineering it is often true that a general solution is preferred to one which only works in special cases. The Mine Kafon seems to be, when viewed in the most charitable light, a very special-purpose solution which adds no value above the general solution. Viewed in a more balanced way, the Mine Kafon is a solution in search of a problem[1]. User _djo_ seems to be saying that, there are already tools which do what the Mine Kafon does, and they minimize not just the economic cost to the de-mining organization but also the human cost to the local population. [1] Do you recall the article several days ago by Paul Graham about how to find good start-up ideas? One thing I took away from that discussion is that you should try to find solutions to existing problems instead of looking for problems that fit your existing solution.