News0 min ago
Detonate rather than dismantle.
12 Answers
http://www.independen...an-bombs-1981955.html
Well I thought I had heard much of what goes off in this crazy country of ours, but this takes the biscuit.
The Army in all their wisdom now decides to detonate rather than dismantle Taliban bombs.
Why didn't they do this from the off-set? /// traditionally, 11 EOD's ammunition technicians (ATOs) have been tasked with making the "long walk" alone to dismantle unexploded improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in order to gather forensics and intelligence on the enemy ///
How much intelligence can be gained from these home-made bombs? they are hardly state of the art technology, and what of the forensics? are they trying to abstract the DNA of the individual tribesman who planted it?.
If exploding them remotely cuts down the fatalities from these devices, then the person or persons responsible for making the decision to dismantle them by hand, should be tried as a war criminal.
Well I thought I had heard much of what goes off in this crazy country of ours, but this takes the biscuit.
The Army in all their wisdom now decides to detonate rather than dismantle Taliban bombs.
Why didn't they do this from the off-set? /// traditionally, 11 EOD's ammunition technicians (ATOs) have been tasked with making the "long walk" alone to dismantle unexploded improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in order to gather forensics and intelligence on the enemy ///
How much intelligence can be gained from these home-made bombs? they are hardly state of the art technology, and what of the forensics? are they trying to abstract the DNA of the individual tribesman who planted it?.
If exploding them remotely cuts down the fatalities from these devices, then the person or persons responsible for making the decision to dismantle them by hand, should be tried as a war criminal.
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Your BNP leaflet says "Bring our troops home" - I agree with BNP on this - Its become another Vietnam - what have we achieved - why don’t we learn the lessons of history and just bring our troops home - We cant afford the unnecessary human or financial cost.
******
286 British forces personnel or MOD civilians have died while serving in Afghanistan since the start of operations in October 2001.
Centrally available records show that for the period 1 January 2006 to 15 February 2010 centrally available records show that:
1,126 UK military and civilian personnel were admitted to UK Field Hospitals and categorised as Wounded in Action.
2,321 UK military and civilian personnel were admitted to UK Field Hospitals for disease or non-battle injuries.
162 UK personnel were categorised as Very Seriously Injured from all causes excluding disease.
171 UK personnel were categorised as Seriously Injured from all causes excluding disease.
3,115 aeromedical evacuations have taken place for UK military and civilian personnel injured or ill in Afghanistan
In February 2010, the British death toll in Afghanistan exceeded that of the Falklands War. [3]
The war in Afghanistan has so far cost £12bn
http://www.guardian.c...tion-2010-afghanistan
******
286 British forces personnel or MOD civilians have died while serving in Afghanistan since the start of operations in October 2001.
Centrally available records show that for the period 1 January 2006 to 15 February 2010 centrally available records show that:
1,126 UK military and civilian personnel were admitted to UK Field Hospitals and categorised as Wounded in Action.
2,321 UK military and civilian personnel were admitted to UK Field Hospitals for disease or non-battle injuries.
162 UK personnel were categorised as Very Seriously Injured from all causes excluding disease.
171 UK personnel were categorised as Seriously Injured from all causes excluding disease.
3,115 aeromedical evacuations have taken place for UK military and civilian personnel injured or ill in Afghanistan
In February 2010, the British death toll in Afghanistan exceeded that of the Falklands War. [3]
The war in Afghanistan has so far cost £12bn
http://www.guardian.c...tion-2010-afghanistan
I am 100% in agreement with your sentiments. To protect these brave soldiers from themselves this course of action is necessary. In fact I did say say in a previous Answerbank question why it was not necessary to gain intelligence on the bomb maker and the IEDs should be blown up by remote control even if it meant blasting holes in the roads. These remote vehicles are usually blown up in the process but the parts can be salvaged to be used again.
Lets not lose any more soldier's lives by IEDs.
Lets not lose any more soldier's lives by IEDs.
I.E.Ds demonstrate the difference between this war and the previous Afghan war, similarly the use of the suicide bomber further expresses it.
It does make sense to blow up these bombs as they are usually anti-personel devices so consequently quite small and cause little damage.
But, it is worthwhile to monitor these bombs, as they'll tell you the level and extent of their armoury and also how many bomb makers + styles are being employed.
I feel this is more a man power/cost issue than a strategic manouver.
I keep asking this question, never get an answer, the Taliban said at the start of this war that we could not win as we have not got the stomach for a fight, that we are not tough enough.
Are they right?
To win this we have to be prepared for a long war, and a longer occupation, the Talibanlack artillery or armour, they posses few mortars and no proper mines.
This despite the fact that we're very unpopular with the neighbours (Iran) who refuse to supply them.
This is different to the Russian experience as no state is funding the Taliban, it is not another Vietnam either.
It does make sense to blow up these bombs as they are usually anti-personel devices so consequently quite small and cause little damage.
But, it is worthwhile to monitor these bombs, as they'll tell you the level and extent of their armoury and also how many bomb makers + styles are being employed.
I feel this is more a man power/cost issue than a strategic manouver.
I keep asking this question, never get an answer, the Taliban said at the start of this war that we could not win as we have not got the stomach for a fight, that we are not tough enough.
Are they right?
To win this we have to be prepared for a long war, and a longer occupation, the Talibanlack artillery or armour, they posses few mortars and no proper mines.
This despite the fact that we're very unpopular with the neighbours (Iran) who refuse to supply them.
This is different to the Russian experience as no state is funding the Taliban, it is not another Vietnam either.
I can't believe this is a new idea. It used to be standard practice . In my army days it was recognised that there are many devices that once set are impossible or nearly impossible to immobilise therefore it was standard practice to detonate them, sometimes by just firing a grenade at them.
When it is safe and there is time sandbags can be placed so as to minimise the effect of the blast.
Some devices are also laid purely to stop or slow the troops moving forward so that snipers and others can attack in other ways. So speed is essential.
When it is safe and there is time sandbags can be placed so as to minimise the effect of the blast.
Some devices are also laid purely to stop or slow the troops moving forward so that snipers and others can attack in other ways. So speed is essential.
sandyRoe
Please tell me your post is a wind-up.
/// Think of the damage these bombs will cause when they're detonated. Giant potholes in the roads, mud-walled houses destroyed, and the like. Who's going to pay for that? ///
If not I think there is something seriously wrong with your logic.
Who could possibly think that materiel things such as road surfaces, and mud houses or even the costs incurred financially, are more important than human life?
Please tell me your post is a wind-up.
/// Think of the damage these bombs will cause when they're detonated. Giant potholes in the roads, mud-walled houses destroyed, and the like. Who's going to pay for that? ///
If not I think there is something seriously wrong with your logic.
Who could possibly think that materiel things such as road surfaces, and mud houses or even the costs incurred financially, are more important than human life?
Rov
When foreign soldiers are in your country and you're planting bombs against these foreign soldiers - are you still a terrorist?
Seems to me we're losing sight of what our purpose is in Afghanistan
Al Qaeda are the terrorists who had a safe haven in Afghanistan - The Taliban did not attact New York, Madrid, London Al Qaeda did
Now they're pretty much all gone elsewhere - our purpose in being there is to stop them coming back.
If that can be done with the Taliban in control C'est la Vie - they're an unpleasant regieme but we're not there to bring democracy to the world.
But if we do just pull out with no controls then Al Qaeda will be back with their training camps in a heart beat and all those dead soldiers that AOG spends so much of his time wringing his hands over will have died for nothing.
Bottom Line: We have to talk to the Taliban
When foreign soldiers are in your country and you're planting bombs against these foreign soldiers - are you still a terrorist?
Seems to me we're losing sight of what our purpose is in Afghanistan
Al Qaeda are the terrorists who had a safe haven in Afghanistan - The Taliban did not attact New York, Madrid, London Al Qaeda did
Now they're pretty much all gone elsewhere - our purpose in being there is to stop them coming back.
If that can be done with the Taliban in control C'est la Vie - they're an unpleasant regieme but we're not there to bring democracy to the world.
But if we do just pull out with no controls then Al Qaeda will be back with their training camps in a heart beat and all those dead soldiers that AOG spends so much of his time wringing his hands over will have died for nothing.
Bottom Line: We have to talk to the Taliban
everton i would think that they can still get hold of proper mines from when the russian army left
http://www.rferl.org/.../article/1051546.html
http://www.rferl.org/.../article/1051546.html
Those mines are old Dr. Filth, still potentially harmful but many will have corroded beyond use.
The point is, that no states are supplying them with munitions, unlike when the mujahade were fighting the Russians an the Americans armed and trained them.
AOG, I think the point Jake was trying to make is that to withdraw now risks handing the country back to the people we've fought so hard to oust.
AOG I'll also ask you directly, the Taliban said we were not tough enough to beat them in a fight, are they right?
The point is, that no states are supplying them with munitions, unlike when the mujahade were fighting the Russians an the Americans armed and trained them.
AOG, I think the point Jake was trying to make is that to withdraw now risks handing the country back to the people we've fought so hard to oust.
AOG I'll also ask you directly, the Taliban said we were not tough enough to beat them in a fight, are they right?
1 to 12 of 12
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.