Bomb detection any developments?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by piper4, Jul 16, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. With the sad loss of our lads in Iraq today, I wondered what is being done to prevent this type of horrific attack. Is there no way routes could be made safe or checked before they are travelled on?

    With the experience the troops have had over the years in N.I and other places and with new technology could something not be found to safeguard our lads and the civillians which get caught up too.
     
  2. There are ways to minimize the chances of being hit by a roadside IED, but this is not the place to discuss them. But it is the nature of the beast that the bomber has the advantage as he can change his tactics and equipment with improvements or avances in technology when and where he wishes. The soldier on the streets can only react to developments in the bomber's tactics and equipment and it is only whan a tactic is understood, or a device is captured that the bofins can figure out a counter to that development. That normally happens when the Soldier has an extrordinary bit of luck or the bomber gets something wrong.

    So we have a relativley new enemy in Iraq, and one that is fanatical, well supplied, technicaly advanced and doesn't hold any life even his own dear. With that in mind it is surprizing that our casualty numbers are so low.

    As for your suggestion that the routes be cleared before they are travelled, you have to remember that to clear a route you have to be on it and as such be at just aws much risk as the patrol that gets hit. The idea of parolling is after all to try and dominate the ground to prevent the terrorist from having time to deploy his devices. The area is too big to have mobile and foot patrols to dominate the ground to the extent that they are unable to do use their tactics to their advantage.

    It took almost 10 years to get the tactics and equipment to be effective in Northern Ireland. You should really expect the same sort of time frame in Iraq if we are there that long.
     
  3. Thank you for your reply. I can understand how things cannot be discussed here and I take onboard all that you wrote and agree we are dealing with people who have no regard for human life.

    I recently lost a friend due to a bombing and on learning today we had lost more lads in Iraq I was just broadly asking if steps are being taken to try and minimise the risk to our lads.
     
  4. The biggest thing the UK is doing in Iraq to avoid casualties is ... leaving the locals alone. I'd bet a lot of money that the attacks UK forces get tend to come from hard-core foreign jihadis rather than local militias. Compare this to the US approach whereby they generate a lot of civvy dead and (knowingly or unknowingly) humiliate and harrass the survivors. Hence both locals and outsiders queue up to have a pop.

    And you can forget whatever technological wet dream solutions are being peddled by defence contractors, all of them can be bypassed in time and can do no more than temporarily alleviate the effects of attacks. The only real solution is to stop people wanting to kill you.