We supposedly have the technology to drop a smart bomb down a chimney from 30,000 feet, we can put an unmanned predator in the air in Iraq and have some guy sitting in Colorado use it to wipe out a jeep riding down the road - yet, we are unable to have some device that will detect roadside bombs before they are triggered? We've lost more young troops to the IEDs, and we're still losing them! Sounds like we've made a conscious decision to forego protecting them because it's too expensive. That sucks.
2007-06-23 05:43:06 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
There has to be a way to detect that these things are out there. Maybe I'm misjudging the complexity of the problem, but - if I was President - I would put the best brains I could find on this problem and try to come up with a solution.
2007-06-23 06:15:34 · update #1
Ch4plain - I don't think my comments "discredit" me at all. I also don't think they're "asinine" - The country with the best technology on earth should be able to come up with a solution to this. The fact that we went to war without body armour sufficient to protect our troops suggests to me that the politicians are taking the same cheepo approach with respect to IEDs.
2007-06-23 06:19:23 · update #2
If there were one standard IED or EFP, we probably could but that's not the case. We do find many of them. Probably about half or better. It takes vigilance on the part of the patrol to find them. We also have equipment on the vehicles that defeats difference kinds of IED's.
We don't have this down to a science, yet. We adapt and the enemy adapts. We get better, they get smarter. It's a cycle that will eventually run out of options.
2007-06-23 18:15:43 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This action grew to become right into a extensive mistake. It has already been assessed as a breach of the Geneva conventions via the U. S. protection tension, yet for some reason no action has been taken yet... If the folk you notice killed planted 5 different instruments that evening, it may even have been of use to comprehend the place the others have been, you won't be able to do this once capturing them. All this shows is a misplaced hazard to shop US/uk lives. Treating people like this of their own country is carefully counter efficient, the hatred it generates makes the finished technique plenty harder. If people sitting in the back of a cushty table an prolonged way from the actual conflict think of this could nicely be a competent concept then they are ddeply hateful / deluded / ignorant. What you're finding at is why Iraq has been misplaced.
2016-10-18 11:30:01 · answer #2 · answered by finkle 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, you are misjudging the complexity of the problem. Putting a guided weapon on a particular spot on earth at a particular time is child's play compared to detecting every conceivable configuration of improvised explosive, expertly camouflaged in any possible location by devious opponents, when you have limited time to pass through a given area to meet other mission objectives. That said, we do detect and deal with many, perhaps most of the IEDs. But you can't get 'em all.
2007-06-23 06:33:47 · answer #3 · answered by gunplumber_462 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Because you have no logic. What do Smart bombs and detecting IEDs have anything to do with each other? Nothing, so stop trying to make a connection between non-related subjects just to give your ASSUMPTION undeserved merit.
It's difficult to detect IEDs because Iraq is a LIVING country, constantly changing, and those IEDs are designed to blend in, just as the insurgents, till the best possible moment to strike is at hand. They could be in the trunk of a car, or in a pile of trash on the side of the road, and running around with bomb sniffing dogs is more likely to attract attention, and possible ambushes.
Your asinine comments just discredit you. You don't want to understand anything. You're just an attention whore.
2007-06-23 05:53:27 · answer #4 · answered by Ch4plain 2 · 5⤊ 1⤋
The fact that there was insufficient amounts of body armor and armored vehichles is the result of the previous 8 yrs of cuts to the military budget and personnel.
It is also a result of the 'norm' of the previous 400 yrs of conducting warfare with firearms.
The fact that this administration changed that equation and began purchasing body armor and armored HumVees demonstrates it's commitment to keeping as many troops alive as possible.
2007-06-23 06:41:50 · answer #5 · answered by John T 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The only true way to detect a bomb to date is x-rays and k-9 dogs. That makes it tuff!
2007-06-23 05:49:31 · answer #6 · answered by Michael N 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because there are these people (commonly called the enemy) who are doing their best to hide the things so they cannot be found.
Besides - we detect over 90% of them. Can _you_ do any better?
2007-06-23 06:20:19 · answer #7 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
those weapons are based on precision. it doesn't exactly work if we rely on precision to detect roadside bombs. i think your opinion would change if you were actually there in Iraq
2007-06-23 06:03:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is bad. I saw one of those shaped charges penetrating the armour of a tank
2007-06-23 05:47:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
why dont u figure out how to detect them and than you can save the world.....Semper Fi
2007-06-23 05:49:52 · answer #10 · answered by LAVADOG 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋