Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Register)   Networked anti-tank mines that can jump 30 meters   (theregister.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

9188 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Jul 2003 at 11:47 AM (12 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



67 Comments   (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-07-01 09:30:54 AM  
Weren't mines banned? Or do these go off when a certain amount of weight (Like a tank) goes on it?
 
2003-07-01 09:36:42 AM  
"Early indications show the hopping mines will kill as no mines have killed before." Great sales pitch. Oh and Smookyfufu, perhaps that is the reason they are called anti-tank mines and the article differentiates them from anti-personnel explosives.
 
2003-07-01 09:43:56 AM  
No need to be so snippy about it :P.
 
2003-07-01 09:48:30 AM  
No snippiness intended, I reserve that for political discussions.

:D
 
2003-07-01 10:22:28 AM  
They're right about one thing. The little wink at the end is absolutely precious!
 
2003-07-01 11:09:10 AM  
Obviously this is an end result of the 'smart bomb' technology. I think it's great we have a mine we can toss out on the ground and tell it to be a anti-tank mine and not an anti-personnel. This way when refugees or children pass by, they'll be able to communicate across the network and let civilians pass safely.
 
2003-07-01 11:55:53 AM  
just wait i am sure they have mines that can crawl into a sleeping soldiers tent on the drawing board, and little shoeboxes that are snipers somewhere in development.

Brr its scary technology, we are getting wayyy to good at killing people
 
2003-07-01 11:55:57 AM  
Good idea, but it would need a lot of work to be effective on the battlefield.
 
2003-07-01 11:56:45 AM  
"the mines will be able to move on their own accord"

Giving machines free will.

How could that possibly go wrong?
[image from boxofficeprophets.com too old to be available]
 
2003-07-01 11:57:01 AM  
all those grueling years of playing minesweeper are about to pay off...

now if only we declare war against the card people of solitaire-8, i'm all set
 
2003-07-01 11:57:04 AM  
"I am a thirty-second bomb! I am a thirty-second bomb! Twenty-nine! Twenty-eight! Twenty-seven!"
 
2003-07-01 11:57:52 AM  
Before anyone goes off on this, be aware:

1. DARPA funds mostly "pie-in-the-sky" research. Not everything they fund actually makes it out to the real world. In fact, most ideas end up getting shelved.

2. Anti-tank mines like this are meant to be on the ground, not under it - visible to people who can avoid them. The idea is to stop large tanks advances, or at least slow them down while they clear it. Currently, they put anti-personel mines around them to discourage combat engineers trying to clear a lane for tanks.

3. If they are networked, there could be a way of telling them to "turn off" in order to be cleared by engineers at a later date, before civilians come back to the area.
 
2003-07-01 11:58:17 AM  
Smookyfufu: No, there was some, Hrrrrrrrmmmm, countries that refused to agree to a ban.....
 
2003-07-01 11:58:46 AM  
it seems to me that the US is always on the offensive, and don't have much of a need for defensive weapons like mines.

Besides, nothing is perfect, these mines may still have problems that could result in civilian deaths.
 
2003-07-01 11:59:23 AM  
This sounds a little too much like the Philip K. Dick short story that the movie "Screamers" was based on. I'm not sure that I trust a mine to tell the difference between a tank and a civilian when people have a difficult time of it themselves.

Like Westworld, "Nothing can ever go wrong--go wrong..."
 
2003-07-01 11:59:51 AM  
Or should that be "I am a thirty second bomb!" ?
 
2003-07-01 12:01:04 PM  
Funny thing is, what nation has a military where they are going to rush us with tanks? I mean, after the latest series of wars we've been in, I would think most nations would realize attacking us with tanks doesn't work anymore.

On a side note, I want to play checkers.
 
2003-07-01 12:01:50 PM  
Remember the episode of Star Trek: Deep Space 9 with the minefield? They made mines that have replicators built in. Blow up a mine or two, neighboring mines replicate new ones in their place.(and it worked too).
 
2003-07-01 12:02:05 PM  
Wow. That's the oldest news i've ever seen on fark.
 
2003-07-01 12:02:30 PM  
140 nations signed the anti-mine treaty. The U.S. wasn't one of them.
 
2003-07-01 12:03:46 PM  
That is the scariest thing I have seen in a long time. Why all the fuss about tanks anyway? Who else here has seen a video of the 'Javelin' anti-tank missile in action? It virtually nullifies the value of even having a tank to begin with. As opposed to your normal LAW missile launcher, which can normally only disable a tank with a good shot, the Javelin comes straight down on top of the tank where there's virtually no armor. By the time it's worked its magic, you can barely even tell what the thing was even a tank to begin with. Farking insane.
 
2003-07-01 12:04:07 PM  
Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply.
[image from bryceanworlds.com too old to be available]

Surely nothing bad can happen...
 
2003-07-01 12:06:02 PM  
bubbaprog: Hmmm, here it says it was only 121?

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9712/04/landmine.wrap/
 
2003-07-01 12:07:22 PM  
No doubt the makers of the game Starcraft should sue.....
 
2003-07-01 12:08:53 PM  
I saw this over a year ago on some discovery channel program.

Basically, they're anti tank mines, when one of them blows, the mines talk to each other and move in order to minimize the gap.

They can also be set to disarm after a certain period of time, or on command. They can also be re-armed. (disarm to let friendly tanks pass, rearm afterward).
 
2003-07-01 12:10:22 PM  
God this is old. Anyway, look at the atrocious flash animations on their page :)
 
2003-07-01 12:12:25 PM  
Iran and Syria are scrambling to get as many as they can.
 
2003-07-01 12:12:38 PM  
Might be useful in places such as the Korean peninsula.
 
2003-07-01 12:18:04 PM  
Did you see the flash animation?
Its not Scary, its Cool!
 
2003-07-01 12:18:49 PM  
Somehow i doubt that the US would just leave these sitting around after combat was over. Too expensive and the technology would have to be protected.
 
2003-07-01 12:19:11 PM  
[image from ahs.uwaterloo.ca too old to be available]

Dammit!
 
2003-07-01 12:26:55 PM  
Banana: that article is 5 1/2 years old.
 
2003-07-01 12:28:32 PM  
can anyone explain WHY we need this?
surely nothing bad can happen
 
2003-07-01 12:30:01 PM  
There is not a ban on anti-tank mine. There is a ban on anti-personel mines that are victim detonated and remain active forever. Even though I don't think the US didn't sign onto the ban, I don't think we use them. Before anyone mentions claymores, they are not victim detonated, they are remote controlled.
 
2003-07-01 12:31:10 PM  
Hey my first article to be accepted!
 
2003-07-01 12:31:28 PM  
crossbuster:
"it seems to me that the US is always on the offensive, and don't have much of a need for defensive weapons like mines."

Yeah, tell that to all the soldiers out in Baghdad now, sitting in a defensive posture most of the day. I'm sure they'd have no use at all for a mine that could better protect their perimeter from the wackos who want to drive a truck in on them with guns blazing.

just a thought: offensive and defensive capabilities are very blurred on today's battlefield.
 
2003-07-01 12:34:10 PM  
"Somehow i doubt that the US would just leave these sitting around after combat was over. Too expensive and the technology would have to be protected."

They probably have a self-destruct command.
 
2003-07-01 12:35:27 PM  
Ottawa Convention (mine ban treaty) - signed by 147, ratified by 134 countries
the list of the 47 countries that have not signed as of 9 May 2003 from icbl.org

1. ARMENIA. AZERBAIJAN. BAHRAIN. BELARUS. BHUTAN. CHINA. CUBA. EGYPT. ESTONIA. Farktopia, FINLAND. GEORGIA. INDIA. IRAN. IRAQ. ISRAEL. KAZAKHSTAN. KOREA, NORTH. KOREA, SOUTH KUWAIT. KYRGYZSTAN. LAOS. LATVIA. LEBANON. LIBYA. MICRONESIA. MONGOLIA. MOROCCO. MYANMAR (BURMA), NEPAL. OMAN. PAKISTAN, PALAU, PAPUA NEW GUINEA, RUSSIA, SAUDI ARABIA, SINGAPORE, SOMALIA, SRI LANKA, SYRIA, TONGA, TURKEY, TUVALU, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UZBEKISTAN, VIETNAM, YUGOSLAVIA
 
2003-07-01 12:38:27 PM  
Yes. Once the 'offense' (country takeover) has occured, then the soldiers need to be able to DEFEND themselves from the pissed off invadees.
 
2003-07-01 12:40:02 PM  
Way to go Singapore.
 
2003-07-01 12:46:01 PM  
Great... the folks at DARPA are watching latenight SCI-FI Channel B-movies and passing it off as R&D. These things sound just like the exploding circular saws from Peter Wellers seminal work SCREAMERS.
 
2003-07-01 12:53:28 PM  
[image from sfworld.onlinehome.de too old to be available]

We're all farked...
 
2003-07-01 01:11:07 PM  
The main reason we didn't sign the ban was the Korean DMZ. A million crazy North Koreans streaming and screaming across the border will make you think twice.

When I was in the army, my job was mines and demolitions, we hardly ever trained on or used the AP mines, except the claymore, which is command detonated. All our doctrine points toward AT mine usage. There was a time that we weren't allowed to train on either the M14 (toe-popper) or the M16 (bouncing betty) mines because of the ban.

So even if the US is not signatory to the ban, I can tell you from first hand experience that we are moving towards it even so. (Except for the crazy DMZ)
 
2003-07-01 01:18:09 PM  
Smooky: We didn't sign up for the ban, so that we could keep mines between North and South korea. Those crazy northerners would love to invade.
 
2003-07-01 01:18:46 PM  
Funny thing is, what nation has a military where they are going to rush us with tanks? I mean, after the latest series of wars we've been in, I would think most nations would realize attacking us with tanks doesn't work anymore.

i think the most recent tanks that the US has been up against ever are WWII tanks.
---------
Who else here has seen a video of the 'Javelin' anti-tank missile in action? It virtually nullifies the value of even having a tank to begin with. As opposed to your normal LAW missile launcher, which can normally only disable a tank with a good shot, the Javelin comes straight down on top of the tank where there's virtually no armor. By the time it's worked its magic, you can barely even tell what the thing was even a tank to begin with. Farking insane.

if you have 100 infantry with 5 javelins vs. 20 tanks....who u think is gonna get farked? China would know what to do in that situation. they have practice, lol
 
2003-07-01 01:19:31 PM  
If you look at bunch of the non-signatories, they are countries with static borders to defend (i.e. Kuwait against Iraq, Singapore against Malaysia, Israel against the Palestinians/Syrians, India against Pakistan, and then the reverse of course). These are the countries which are very unlikely to ever sign such an agreement because, for all of their problems, land mines are extremely effective defensive weapons, that free up personnel from having to guard every last centimeter. Unfortunately, except for the United States, I don't think any of these other countries could afford to switch to a smart-mine technology, so we are at an impass.
 
2003-07-01 01:25:35 PM  
Without smart mines, what's to stop the Canadian advance? Or even worse, the Canada/Mexico pincer attack? That's going to be a doozy.
 
2003-07-01 01:36:13 PM  
networked, self-healing mine fields?
sounds interesting, but the more complicated you make your equipment the more likely it is to fail, and the more vulnerabilities it has.

all they'd need to do is hit the area with some type of EMP pulse to disable the "smarts", smash the existing mines with a sweeper and drive right through.
 
2003-07-01 01:47:41 PM  
Anybody read this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,988612,00.html

I'm sorry, but unless there is a nation that we've never heard of before that has our same level of industrial capacity and technological ability, there is no justifiable reason that we should be entitled to have this stuff.

We're the evil empire that every despot has ever dreamed of ruling. Plain and simple. And I'm sorry to say this, but the rest of the world should gang up on us and take our toys away from us, even if it means the destruction of the United States as we know it. The world is too small and fragile for cowboy dictators.
 
2003-07-01 01:48:11 PM  
I submitted this link back when the story was fresh on the reg. Feh. Oh well. Nice in theory, much like that decentralized network thingy they were working on a few decades ago.
 
Displayed 50 of 67 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report