3 ms·
IED - The I stands for improvised. It would be pretty stupid to only have one method of detonating a bomb now wouldn't it? For every cell-phone detonator, the
by run4yourlives 17y ago
IED - The I stands for improvised.
It would be pretty stupid to only have one method of detonating a bomb now wouldn't it?
For every cell-phone detonator, there are hundreds of less sophisticated weapons. Simple mines, pressure switches, springs, tripwires, etc etc.
It is near impossible to defend against a booby trap. It's far more effective to ensure survivability. This of course has the unfortunate side effect of encouraging larger bombs.
Ergo: the reason troops moved in Humvees early in the conflict; now use RG-31's (or equivalent) or when available, helicopters.
- vaksel 17y agowell it doesn't hurt to remove some of their options. + with the overflight, they'd probably catch a large number of these bomb makers
- randallsquared 17y agoI don't see this catching more than a tiny percentage of them. What would be the point in leaving a cellphone connected to the explosives while you were working on it? Even without specific safety precautions, it seems unlikely that most would do this -- it would take extra effort to be vulnerable to this tactic.
- run4yourlives 17y agoThose are resources that could be better used elsewhere, to be honest. Aircraft are always in short supply. You can also realize that the problem is already solved: US vehicles already have jamming equipment.
- tdavis 17y agoThe problem is hardly solved. * Each jammer is different and caters to a specific type of detonator, or group of detonators. * Effective ranges aren't large enough. * Lack of proper training for soldiers means most have no idea if the jamming device is even working; many keep them off because they interfere with radios, etc. * The lag time between new jammer tech and proper fielding is a year+ in many cases. I rarely road in a vehicle with the "latest and greatest".
- run4yourlives 17y agoSolved as in "That's good enough for now, we'll keep working on it." Certainly more feasible that random flybys.
- tdavis 17y agoMore feasible than flybys? Certainly. Good enough for now? It will be, when my friends stop getting blown up.
- run4yourlives 17y agoNo offence intended, I'm ex-infantry myself. But yeah, good enough for the time being, until something more practical can be implemented. Sucks that not being perfect means people die, but you will never win a chess match if you try not to lose a single piece.