DailyDirt: Weapons To Fight Terrorists...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Osama bin Laden's death has inspired quite a few stories about the military gear that special forces use against terrorists. It sounds like James Bond has inspired some of these weapons: stealth helicopters, dogs with titanium teeth... Here are a few more examples of these weapons. By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Beta (profile), May 9th, 2011 @ 5:12pm

    I actually used to be a rocket scientist...

    “There’s always a concern that a conventional warhead on an ICBM might be confused with a nuclear device – what can you do to prove otherwise... With a high lift vehicle, your trajectory would be so different that no one would likely confuse it with something more sinister.”

    All right, this baffles me. If the new device can carry a heavy conventional warhead, why couldn't people suspect that it might be carrying a nuke?

    Maybe because it would be an unthinkable break with tradition? Or because nobody would expect us to put such an expensive warhead on a vehicle that still can't make it through a test flight? (I'm clutching at straws here.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Nick Taylor, May 9th, 2011 @ 5:36pm

    "Fight Terrorists"?

    What? Like dropping 1/4 of a million cluster-bomblets, 98% of the fatalaties from which are civilian, and 1/3 of those children?

    You can't fight terrorism if you're the biggest participant - because the grievances of the people you call "terrorists" are probably legitimate.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Greg G (profile), May 9th, 2011 @ 6:18pm

    Re:

    citation, please?

    love how you just give stats with no support.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    abc gum, May 9th, 2011 @ 6:27pm

    Although Titanium Teeth would be awesome, this story is in dispute. Anyone have the definitive word on this?

    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/no-navy-seal-dogs-dont-have-titanium-teeth/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Greg G (profile), May 9th, 2011 @ 6:49pm

    Re:

    I just read through a Human Rights Watch document (pdf) about the use of cluster munitions in Afghanistan.

    I don't see anything near 98% being civilian. There are some, yes... which happens during a war, especially when terrorists like to hide amongst civilians hoping the US or others won't bomb the living crap out of them for fear of collateral damage.

    Yes, unfortunately there will always be civilian casualties during war. But the difference here is, they are unintentional. The terrorists target civilians intentionally. That's something people like you and HRW apparently forget.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 9th, 2011 @ 7:30pm

    Interesting How The US ...

    ... has never been able to come up with an answer to James Bond.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 9th, 2011 @ 10:13pm

    Which Reminds Me ...

    ... Who Will Be America’s New Bogeyman?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Michael Lockyear (profile), May 10th, 2011 @ 1:39am

    Let me Google that for you...

    "The report also found that 46 per cent of the victims of US air strikes whose gender could be determined were female and 39 per cent were children."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/5161326/Number-of-women-and- children-killed-in-Iraq-air-raids-disproportionately-high.html

    Not exact but good enough?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Michael Lockyear (profile), May 10th, 2011 @ 1:41am

    Americans don't kill "children"...the preferred tern is midget terrorist.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Greg G (profile), May 10th, 2011 @ 6:27am

    Re:

    I had posted another reply last night, but it was flagged for review by the site and hasn't appeared yet (first time that's ever happened.)

    Anyway, it had a link to to pdf doc for a human rights organization. In it, there were stats about civilian casualties. A village of about 12000 people was cluster bombed over about 6 or 7 days because the Taliban was hiding in the village instead of staying in their camp that was nearby. From that report, about 20, maybe 25, civilian villagers were killed. That's not even close to the 98% Nick is claiming.

    Nick (and apparently you) only seem to want to blame the U.S. and put nothing on the terrorists that hide in the villages using these civilians as shields.

    It's unfortunate, but civilians always have and always will be killed in wars. The big difference is that the U.S. does not do it intentionally (and if they do, they are punished for it) but when terrorists kill civilians, it's always intentional.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Greg G (profile), May 10th, 2011 @ 6:35am

    Re:

    Also, in that story you linked to:

    While the study didn't assign blame for the killings, death squads largely run by Shiite militias were believed to be behind many of the bullet-riddled bodies that turned up by the dozens on the streets of Baghdad and other cities – often stripped of any identification.

    Those death squads were seeking revenge for the deaths of Shiite civilians at the hands of al-Qaida and other Sunni religious extremists in suicide bombings and other attacks.


    And:

    Only 4 per cent of the Iraqi deaths included in the study, or 2,363, were a result of US air strikes, which frequently targeted suspected insurgents hiding in houses. But 46 per cent of the victims whose gender could be determined were female and 39 per cent were children.

    Thanks for that. Come on, Nick. Got anythying to say for yourself?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, May 10th, 2011 @ 11:58am

    Aerial surveillance from a quadcopter drone can be used to track a person from over 2 miles away. So far, it seems like only South American drug cartels have had to worry about these drones, but that could change anytime.

    Don't worry, the FBI and local police forces will be using them soon enough. In fact, I'd be surprised if they weren't already...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This