On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:13:57 GMT, Ignoramus4546
wrote:

TMT's question deteriorated into a [somewhat interesting] political
discussion, but the question as to what to do techically about IEDs is
a very interesting question and very much on topic of this
newsgroup. Perhaps, in this sub-thread, we could post our own thoughts
as to what could be done to reduce the threat of IEDs.

I would like to ask NOT to post any political opinions into this
sub-thread.

My own thinking is that if about 2,000 miles of roads were made safe
from IEDs, the safety of US convoys could be greatly improved. If that
could be done by spending $1,000 per every 100 meters, or $16,000 per
mile, then securing 2000 miles would cost 32 million dollars. That's
really not too much.

What can be done for $1,000? A couple of light/IR cameras, solar
chargers and batteries, lasers and motion sensors and a transmitter
does not seem to be far fetched. It would be stuff similar to what is
sold at home depot and x10, only a little more rugged. It does not
have to be terribly reliable, as they can be treated as consumables
and replaced when it breaks.

So... if they set up some motion sensor activated cameras,
transmitters etc, then a few computers that receive these
transmissions can monitor those 2,000 miles of roads. If activity is
detected in any area, it can first of all be marked as "treat with
caution and search for mines", and second, maybe photos of suspects
could be taken and displayed.

That could go quite a long way. Obviously, development of such a
project would take some money too, but I think that it is a feasible
project.

It may be more problematic to do it inside of cities, but still
doable.

i
So you take pictures of the tangoes and mail them tickets? Take
pix fast, because the mean life of those cameras will be minutes.

Technology is only useful in warfare to the extent that it better
enables soldiers, sailors or airmen to shoot, move and communicate,
deliver fire and capture or destroy the enemy.

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 18:09:57 GMT, Ignoramus4546
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 11:53:21 -0600, Don Foreman wrote:
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:13:57 GMT, Ignoramus4546
wrote:

TMT's question deteriorated into a [somewhat interesting] political
discussion, but the question as to what to do techically about IEDs is
a very interesting question and very much on topic of this
newsgroup. Perhaps, in this sub-thread, we could post our own thoughts
as to what could be done to reduce the threat of IEDs.

I would like to ask NOT to post any political opinions into this
sub-thread.

My own thinking is that if about 2,000 miles of roads were made safe
from IEDs, the safety of US convoys could be greatly improved. If that
could be done by spending $1,000 per every 100 meters, or $16,000 per
mile, then securing 2000 miles would cost 32 million dollars. That's
really not too much.

What can be done for $1,000? A couple of light/IR cameras, solar
chargers and batteries, lasers and motion sensors and a transmitter
does not seem to be far fetched. It would be stuff similar to what is
sold at home depot and x10, only a little more rugged. It does not
have to be terribly reliable, as they can be treated as consumables
and replaced when it breaks.

So... if they set up some motion sensor activated cameras,
transmitters etc, then a few computers that receive these
transmissions can monitor those 2,000 miles of roads. If activity is
detected in any area, it can first of all be marked as "treat with
caution and search for mines", and second, maybe photos of suspects
could be taken and displayed.

That could go quite a long way. Obviously, development of such a
project would take some money too, but I think that it is a feasible
project.

It may be more problematic to do it inside of cities, but still
doable.

i
So you take pictures of the tangoes and mail them tickets? Take
pix fast, because the mean life of those cameras will be minutes.


Technology is only useful in warfare to the extent that it better
enables soldiers, sailors or airmen to shoot, move and communicate,
deliver fire and capture or destroy the enemy.

well, I suppose that a real time warning could be helpful and a
deterrent to those who place IEDs. It would also warn troops of unsafe
areas.

i

Combat troops know what areas are unsafe. There are no safe areas in
a combat zone infested with tangos. Unfortunate and regrettable
events sometimes happen in such an sit because tangos don't wear
badges. **** happens in a theatre of operations.

Read it again, Ig: "Technology is only useful in warfare....." I
speak as both a technopuke and a vet. Technology can be useful if
applied or devised by practitioners who have learned tactics by
experience. It is otherwise usually a waste of taxpayer money.