It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why defuse bombs - BLOW THEM UP !

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by nobodysavedme
 


It's not just about seeing a bomb and knowing where it was made, but when a factory is raided, from the type of components present, they know which bombs that factory was likely to have created, allowing them to charge the bomb-makers with producing actual bombs discovered.

Nearly every aspect of a bomb is valuable from an intelligence perspective.




posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by nobodysavedme
 


Use you imagination. Scientists can uncover quite a bit about any device which is recovered. The devil is in the detail.

Regards



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by beckybecky
just heard a another soldier got blown up defusing a bomb.

very stupid.

why bother?

just shoot it.

the number of people getting blown up is just ridiculous

some people trying to be brave but very stupid and ending up dead stupid.


anyone know why these people defusing bombs?

why?


collateral damage. . . . picking up and moving improv explosives isn't the safest thing to do. People place bombs in areas where people will be killed if they blow up. Many times it's defuse it because moving to a safe area for detonation is not practical and may be down right suicidal.

It's really not that hard of a concept to understand. Bombs are very good at blowing up they have to be handled very delicately. . . .

[edit on 28-1-2010 by constantwonder]



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


Not to mention if they put the bomb on something that no one wants to be blown up. According to beckybecky they should just blow it up anyway. Fantastic logic! :-P



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   
The most prefered render safe procedure is called "BIP" or Blow In Place.

If it were feasible for the EOD tech to "just blow it up" believe me, he would have. Sometimes it is not feasible because of surrounding people, places or things. Sometimes it is not feasible because of the need of intellengence on the bomb's design. Bomb makers usually will have some sort of signature to their handywork. This sometimes leads to their apprehension or it may lead to more effective methods of defusing their bombs in the future.

Also, many of these IEDs are made from dud or unspent ordnance such as aerial bombs or artillery shells, making them a significant threat to the surrounding area. We are not talking about an insignificant amount of explosives.

No EOD tech wants to become the proverbial "fine pink mist" in the course of his duties. Believe me, they are not in the habit of taking UNNECCESSARY risks, but sometimes risks are neccessary.

Someone mentioned the bomb suits.... They are protective up to a point. They are also a hinderance in many cases as well. Some believe that if you are close enough that the bomb suit will protect you from the fragmentation, you are also close enough that the blast can do major harm. They make it hard to get close to the device and get a good look at it without becoming awkward and top heavy.

Sometimes, no matter how many precautions are taken, bad things happen. Some bombs are specifically designed to kill people trying to disarm them.

The sheer hatred and ignorance portrayed in this thread in regards to EOD techs, their methodology and philosophy is totally mind boggling.

I know I am just feeding the troll, but I could not resist trying to help lend some kind of sanity to the thread.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by BomSquad
The most prefered render safe procedure is called "BIP" or Blow In Place.

If it were feasible for the EOD tech to "just blow it up" believe me, he would have. Sometimes it is not feasible because of surrounding people, places or things. Sometimes it is not feasible because of the need of intellengence on the bomb's design. Bomb makers usually will have some sort of signature to their handywork. This sometimes leads to their apprehension or it may lead to more effective methods of defusing their bombs in the future.

Also, many of these IEDs are made from dud or unspent ordnance such as aerial bombs or artillery shells, making them a significant threat to the surrounding area. We are not talking about an insignificant amount of explosives.

No EOD tech wants to become the proverbial "fine pink mist" in the course of his duties. Believe me, they are not in the habit of taking UNNECCESSARY risks, but sometimes risks are neccessary.

Someone mentioned the bomb suits.... They are protective up to a point. They are also a hinderance in many cases as well. Some believe that if you are close enough that the bomb suit will protect you from the fragmentation, you are also close enough that the blast can do major harm. They make it hard to get close to the device and get a good look at it without becoming awkward and top heavy.

Sometimes, no matter how many precautions are taken, bad things happen. Some bombs are specifically designed to kill people trying to disarm them.

The sheer hatred and ignorance portrayed in this thread in regards to EOD techs, their methodology and philosophy is totally mind boggling.

I know I am just feeding the troll, but I could not resist trying to help lend some kind of sanity to the thread.


couldn't have said it better myself . . . and i did try



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 


So if I bake a pizza in Alabama scientists can deduce it was made in Tehran because they found some sand specks which can only come from Iran because the anchovies in the pizza came from Iran?



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by nobodysavedme
 


That has nothing to do with the discussion.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by nobodysavedme
 


You are very likely the same poster as beckybecky.

If that is true, you are a real contender for the most pathetic person on ATS, and that's saying something. If this is a sockpuppet account, that is SAD.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by mdiinican
 


Hi!

This is what I raised on page 2 - the only person that agreed with Beckybecky was I believe, Beckybecky posting under another id. Style(and limited content) is the same.

Peace!



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by The Wave
 


The new poster has doesn't seem to hate capital letters as much as beckybecky, but apart from that, the styles are indeed very similar.

I find it amazing that two people, even on ATS, would have such a ridiculously illogical, emotionally-crazed opinion of EOD crews, their methods, and science in general. It boggles the mind.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


Hi,

Can only agree with you! 'Both' posters appear to have similar entrenched views, and an apparent inability to listen to the logical explanations as posted by yourself and the all others.

And as for being a bomb disposal expert - not sure I could do it - lack of patience and fear of dying. I always respect others that achieve what I know I can't.

Peace!



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
The real question is why don't they use robots that can defuse them from a distance?

Seems more logical.


There are bomb disarming robots. This video shows a 15-year old model not capable of climbing stairs and a newer 2-year old model that can even climb stairs:

www.metacafe.com...

I too wonder why they aren't used more.

Regarding trying to gain forensic evidence by not blowing up in place, in the future we may still be able to get some forensic evidence about the source of the explosives if this effort succeeds:

Putting taggants in explosives and gunpowder will put bomb-making terrorists out of business.


In summary: The government-mandated addition of chemical "taggants" to gunpowder and explosives has often been proposed in the U.S. as a legislative strategy for combatting terrorist bombings, by giving such potential bombmaking materials a unique chemical "signature" which could provide investigators additional clues to work from in identifying bombing suspects.


Not reality yet but maybe someday.

Back to the robots, they look like they might perform simple tasks but might be a little clumsy for fine work. As robot designs continue to improve I suspect they will become more versatile and useful. But one problem I can see with robots in remote locations like Afghanistan would be the difficulty of maintaining them, like keeping spare parts inventory, training people to troubleshoot and maintain such complex machines, etc.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The "Wheelbarrow", which is now 38 years old, could climb stairs.

All of the EOD robots don't disarm bombs in the sense of making them safe by snipping a few wires or removing detonators from explosives, but by damaging the bombs in such a way that they don't detonate. Usually by a shotgun blast, or high-pressure water. The operator sends the machine up with various investigative tools, even including portable x-ray devices, radiation or odour detectors, in order to figure out the composition of the bomb (conventional, radiological, chemical) and how best to render the bomb safe. Once that's done, if the robot is not carrying the required equipment to make it safe, it is withdrawn, re-fitted with the right equipment (through its modular construction), and sent back out. It is lined up by the operator, pointing whichever device will be used to disarm (water, shotgun shell, or even solid-state laser, etc.) at the device, and then triggered. Hopefully, the bomb has been rendered safe. During the 70s the British lost hundreds of wheelbarrows in Northern Ireland. I don't have to tell you what that represents.

Robots are used frequently, with people actually touching bombs very rarely. It takes up to 36 months to train an expert in bomb-disposal, and a week to build a new robot. The robots are used as much as possible. As the EOD teams, in the UK anyway, are usually part of the Royal Engineers, they will always be surrounded by people capable of fixing them.

Though, in beckybecky's strange and wonderful mind, they are all feckless idiots, and they should just call in air support to drop a 500lb bomb on each found device, regardless of where it is or what it's made of. Genius.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Very little evidence can be obtained from most IEDs. They are mostly made from everyday materials that just about anyone could have or obtain. So thats not the reason they defuse them.

The main reason for defusing instead of controlled detonation is the amount of damage it could cause to civilian property and life.


No people or builidings= no soldier having to risk his life.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Berserker01
 


That's not necessarily true. It's not just the components, but how they're put together. They can see what the device is made from, where the explosives were sourced, where the detonators are from, and how the device would be triggered. There's a plethora of information in a bomb - far more than just the components themselves.

Robot = no soldier having to risk his life



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


If that was the case then they would inspect all of them with a robot instead of doing an on site detonation for the ones that do not pose a threat to buildings or personnel.

These aren't sophisticated bombs. They are thrown together for the most part. They are made with materials at hand, which would mean getting a signature almost impossible. A guy making the bombs may have certain materials one day and the next have to use completely differant materials. One day he may have access to materials to make a remote detonated IED and the next he might have one that is on a timer. He may have C4 one day and the next nothing more then a bag of nails.

Where as a guy like the unabomber would have the same materials for every bomb he made, which would make getting a signature more probable.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by nobodysavedme
 


No, now you are being childish.

The reasons for managed bomb disposal through defusing the device have been well articulated by posters in this thread. They range from collecting evidence (often criminal evidence), intelligence gathering and finally the safety of the public, fellow soldiers and property.

If the weight of evidence still still does not educate you then nothing will.

Regards



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Berserker01
 


The issue is, until they can ascertain that that is the case, every bomb must be inspected. Once an unbroken pattern is formed, then yes - certain assumptions can be made. When bombs are encountered in an area where previously there were none, they are not just destroyed willy-nilly. EOD teams are not usually in the habit of throwing potentially life-saving information down the drain. Also, they are aware that not all bombs are safe to detonate, even if they are away from houses and people. Empty some smoke detectors, wrap them around any explosive, and detonate it, and that ejecta (and the wind that contains it) is now dangerously radioactive. EOD teams are aware of this. True, none have been found like that yet, but it only makes sense that the "bad guys" will think of it. They're not stupid, either.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Berserker01
reply to post by davesidious
 


If that was the case then they would inspect all of them with a robot instead of doing an on site detonation for the ones that do not pose a threat to buildings or personnel.

These aren't sophisticated bombs. They are thrown together for the most part. They are made with materials at hand, which would mean getting a signature almost impossible. A guy making the bombs may have certain materials one day and the next have to use completely differant materials. One day he may have access to materials to make a remote detonated IED and the next he might have one that is on a timer. He may have C4 one day and the next nothing more then a bag of nails.

Where as a guy like the unabomber would have the same materials for every bomb he made, which would make getting a signature more probable.




Berseker01 you are so correct.It seems to me our detracters have been watching way far too much CIS ,NCIS,etc which are the most absurd and ridiculous programs.This has brain washed them with this absurd notion of gaining "intelligence" from a collection of random components.

I mean all they have to do is type quickly into a keyboard and the answer comes up right away from their super fast computers in NCIS.

In any case the daily carnage has vindicated me as bomb defuser after bomb defuser has been killed and their political masters don't give a hoot and shed their public crocodile tears while they keep the policy of bomb defusing in place.

Even more astonishing is why these bomb defusers persist.

i mean just shoot the bomb.

i mean it is o.k. to be macho but being blown up to impress your mates is little different to the taliban suicide bombers who are put under intense pressure to blow themselves up.




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join