Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Low-cost Solution to Clearing Afghan Landmines

m.good.is

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 181 posts

Re: Low-cost Solution to Clearing Afghan Landmines

#161

Post by warrenm »

jonke wrote: post #57
_djo_ wrote: post #13

Sadly, demining is not this simple or easy. Mine rollers and mine flails like this have been tried and tested since WWI but none have proven completely effective in finding and clearing mines. This is partially because they only work well on totally flat terrain and rapidly lose effectiveness in rougher terrain where a large number of mines are typically buried. In practice, solutions like this achieve only 50-60% ef…

I agree. Demining for human/civilian is harder than just to clear a way for a military purpose. The thing with projects like this roller is that it actually takes money and time from the things that really work, like sniffer dogs.

it's also deployable by untrained personnel cheaply - as a precursor to more rigorous/"professional" removal, why is it a Bad Thing?

Re: Low-cost Solution to Clearing Afghan Landmines

#162

Post by LaGrange »

PeterisP wrote: post #157
LaGrange wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both involve sentient beings. This is not about valuing children less. This is about valuing sheep more. This might be an uncomfortable world view, taking how much we depend on non-human abuse in our civilization, but it's not the only case where we built it on abuse of others, human or not.

If it was neccessary to save my child, I'd eagerly murder every sheep in the world in the most painful way possible with my hands. Animal lives and welfare do matter, but when it comes to weighing human lives against animal lives, only a ratio of something like a million-to-one may be ethically justified. Definitely not one-to-one sheep to a kid. Definitely not even hundred-to-one. It could be reasonable to sacrifice…

Wow, it must be really scary to be a kid of someone with that kind of violent fantasies.

Now, as a mental exercise, I suggest you replace "animal" with a racial slur of choice. Because, seriously, 100 years ago people said that about all kinds of other people. They actually still do. Having a slightly higher amount of common DNA is not a justification of whatever-the-hell.

And at the point where you say "however sentient they may be", you just go into downright I-don't-want-to-meet-that-person-in-a-dark-alley territory.

Re: Low-cost Solution to Clearing Afghan Landmines

#163

Post by anthonyb »

PeterisP wrote: post #157
LaGrange wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both involve sentient beings. This is not about valuing children less. This is about valuing sheep more. This might be an uncomfortable world view, taking how much we depend on non-human abuse in our civilization, but it's not the only case where we built it on abuse of others, human or not.

If it was neccessary to save my child, I'd eagerly murder every sheep in the world in the most painful way possible with my hands. Animal lives and welfare do matter, but when it comes to weighing human lives against animal lives, only a ratio of something like a million-to-one may be ethically justified. Definitely not one-to-one sheep to a kid. Definitely not even hundred-to-one. It could be reasonable to sacrifice…

False dichotomy much?

How about we don't murder any sheep or children, and instead spend the money that we would've spent on sheep torture on better fences, signs, education and mine clearance? While you're at it, you can lobby your elected representative to spend more than the currently pitiful amount that they do on mine clearance.

ps. A million-to-one? You have a very interesting idea of "ethics". Also of "definitely".

Re: Low-cost Solution to Clearing Afghan Landmines

#164

Post by anthonyb »

konstruktor wrote: post #123
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they couldn't find a farmer brave enough to seed a minefield?

And how do you irrigate and fertilize mined territory in the Afghan desert in a way that's cheaper than actual demining? Walking around with a hose or setting up an irrigation system seems too dangerous (or require partial demining to create footpaths anyway), and using any type of aircraft is expensive.

There are already large numbers of aircraft flying over Afghanistan looking for the Taliban, aren't there? That's obviously not too expensive, it's just a question of political will.

Re: Low-cost Solution to Clearing Afghan Landmines

#165

Post by pbhjpbhj »

_djo_ wrote: post #160
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you went hyperbolic in your GP post. You said that mine-rollers were "useless" - which they clearly are not if they can clear mines as a first pass (yes given the right terrain).

I disagree. I said 'solutions like this', i.e. mine rollers as a single technique, were useless. I stand by that statement because the stats are quite clear on this as even in ideal conditions (which are seldom present) a roller can only be expected to detonate half the mines in an area. In fact in many areas rollers can't be used at all because of the terrain and vegetation, so demining teams use a combination of ot…

Nope, you're doing it again.

You're saying something akin to: 'tyres are useless because cars also need engines; people are already effectively using tyres; often tyres don't work'.

>It seems silly to laud an ineffective design while there are people out there every day clearing landmines with solutions that work. //

Solutions that according to you - strongly implied eve within the parent comment - include rollers.

So

"Mine rollers are useless [for that purpose] and so should never be used to clear mines under any circumstances."

Yes or no?

Re: Low-cost Solution to Clearing Afghan Landmines

#166

Post by pbhjpbhj »

lostlogin wrote: post #97
capsicum wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but because of the low cost we can create a lot of these and let them run over a long period of time.

Surely the trip to collect the thing after it passes out the minefield is an issue, it could take days to retrieve.

Piece of string on a reel?

Re: Low-cost Solution to Clearing Afghan Landmines

#167

Post by pbhjpbhj »

jontas wrote: post #39
michaelgrafl wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an informative posting. But does it hurt to get about half the landmines by cheap means and do the rest with more thorough methods? That's not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely interested.

This is a topic I know next to nothing about, but I have two responses for your question: 1. Is it really useful at all to only clear half the landmines? I would assume the area is still too dangerous to be useful even with only 40% of the landmines remaining. 2. Given #1, it would follow that additional (expensive) land mine clearing technologies would always be needed in addition. I don't know how these work or are…

I'd expect the there would be a search cost, a removal cost and making safe cost. That the search cost would be lower than the removal cost (less skilled, less dangerous).

I'd be extremely surprised to find that a commercial clearing of mines for an area with 40 mines was the same cost as clearing that same area with 400 mines. Equally that clearing a double-sized area with 40 mines was the same cost.

Either way you'd reduce costs - reducing search area or reducing removal+disposals needed. [fwiw _djo_ intimated that the increased cost to the process of debris removed any utility such devices might have but also suggested that similar devices are in current commercial use].

With a sandy area I'm wondering how well a dragged scarifier like implement would fair.

Re: Low-cost Solution to Clearing Afghan Landmines

#168

Post by varjag »

robert-boehnke wrote: post #86
varjag wrote: post #83

When you put effort into promotional video, how hard is it to Google the actual Russian text for "danger minefield" rather than put up a shield with random Cyrillic alphabet soup?

When doing a google image search on a screen shot of the sign, I found a couple of matches: http://www.travbuddy.com/Kulyab-travel-guide-1325354/photos#... http://serious.tumblr.com/post/39645197/beware-of-landmines-... Could it be that the sign is in Tajik and not Russian? (I speak neither of those languages, so I wouldn't know…)

Now that makes much more sense, thanks!

Re: Low-cost Solution to Clearing Afghan Landmines

#169

Post by Luyt »

michael_h wrote: post #93

We've updated our site to better accommodate you and the world. This means the browser you're currently using is no longer supported Web developers, please do not do this. I have no power over what browser is installed so this only ensures that I won't read your content. Give me a warning and display it anyway. My browser is one version behind the current version .

Reminds me of http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/

Re: Low-cost Solution to Clearing Afghan Landmines

#170

Post by _djo_ »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #165
_djo_ wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. I said 'solutions like this', i.e. mine rollers as a single technique, were useless. I stand by that statement because the stats are quite clear on this as even in ideal conditions (which are seldom present) a roller can only be expected to detonate half the mines in an area. In fact in many areas rollers can't be used at all because of the terrain and vegetation, so demining teams use a combination of ot…

Nope, you're doing it again. You're saying something akin to: 'tyres are useless because cars also need engines; people are already effectively using tyres; often tyres don't work'. > It seems silly to laud an ineffective design while there are people out there every day clearing landmines with solutions that work. // Solutions that according to you - strongly implied eve within the parent comment - include rollers.…

I find this debate a bit perplexing: You're asking me to answer a straw man argument that nobody here has made, so I'm not entirely sure what your overall point is.

Mine rollers can be effective for civilian demining, but only in the right type of terrain with the right type of vegetation and when used in concert with other demining techniques. I didn't just imply that it my posts, I stated it outright when asked when and where mine rollers could be effective.

But when used independently, as the Mine Kafon's video shows, mine rollers are useless for civilian demining and, because of the false sense of security they provide, could even be harmful. A minefield that people believe to be cleared, but isn't, is far more dangerous than a minefield that's demarcated and which most people know to avoid.

So I'd amend your provided phrase and say:

"Mine rollers used independently are useless for civilian demining and should not be seen as civilian mine clearance solutions."

I'm not sure how much clearer I could be on this.

Post reply on HN