Checkmite
7th September 2003, 11:25 PM
To begin - it may be a mistake to refer to this idea as a "new" invention; the thing may already be out there.
Now for the idea. In spite of the 9/11 attacks and the spate of suicide bombings in Palestine, a review of terrorist events over the past couple of years indicates that an overwhelming majority of terrorists are either not ignorant enough to kill themselves during the execution of a terrorist act, or are otherwise not so committed to the cause as to be willing to do the same. Many terrorist bombs are controlled by radio - a good example would be most of the car bombs which have detonated in Baghdad since the cessation of "major military action" there. Typically, the terrorist waits for the target to enter the vehicle, or waits for the vehicle to be brought to the target, and then detonates the explosive remotely. This ensures accuracy and is something of an insurance policy, should the poor sap delivering the vehicle to the target building decide he doesn't want to die today after all.
I propose an efficient and very effective method of protecting important sites and structures - for example, American embassies and offices in foreign countries - from explosive devices activated by radio control in that fashion. The device would be a small radio transmitter, set to broadcast a spike at regular intervals throughout the band(s) most often used by terrorist explosive systems (UHF springs to mind, there may be others). The device would have a practical range. The idea is to detonate any such explosive devices before they are placed at (or boarded by) their targets. For instance, if a vehicle is on the way to an embassy, the radio "shield" would trigger the explosive as soon as it was in "range", before the embassy or embassy personnel could be placed in harm's way. Similarly, if a sabotaged and booby-trapped state-vehicle or taxi is on its way to pick up an important person, that vehicle would be destroyed while the "target" remained safe.
Here's the problem. American property and personnel may be saved by this device - but wherever the explosive goes off, chances are there will be other innocent people around who could get hurt and killed. Are American lives more important to us, in the end, than the local population? Should embassies simply forgo this type of protection, and absorb any terrorist acts directed against them, for the purpose of sparing civilians? What about the civilians in the embassy? I am having difficulty answering these questions.
Say you had this device with you while you were driving through some city associated with terrorist organizations or recent acts. Your job is to actively protect U.S. (or pick your country) interests by using this device to "minesweep" terrorist hangouts and destroy the weapons at the source. Would you test the device by turning it on momentarily? The only devices that would explode are ones built by terrorists, to be sure. But what would the cost in casualties be? What if it was a city like Ramallah, which would probably go up like Nagasaki if you activated the device?
Now for the idea. In spite of the 9/11 attacks and the spate of suicide bombings in Palestine, a review of terrorist events over the past couple of years indicates that an overwhelming majority of terrorists are either not ignorant enough to kill themselves during the execution of a terrorist act, or are otherwise not so committed to the cause as to be willing to do the same. Many terrorist bombs are controlled by radio - a good example would be most of the car bombs which have detonated in Baghdad since the cessation of "major military action" there. Typically, the terrorist waits for the target to enter the vehicle, or waits for the vehicle to be brought to the target, and then detonates the explosive remotely. This ensures accuracy and is something of an insurance policy, should the poor sap delivering the vehicle to the target building decide he doesn't want to die today after all.
I propose an efficient and very effective method of protecting important sites and structures - for example, American embassies and offices in foreign countries - from explosive devices activated by radio control in that fashion. The device would be a small radio transmitter, set to broadcast a spike at regular intervals throughout the band(s) most often used by terrorist explosive systems (UHF springs to mind, there may be others). The device would have a practical range. The idea is to detonate any such explosive devices before they are placed at (or boarded by) their targets. For instance, if a vehicle is on the way to an embassy, the radio "shield" would trigger the explosive as soon as it was in "range", before the embassy or embassy personnel could be placed in harm's way. Similarly, if a sabotaged and booby-trapped state-vehicle or taxi is on its way to pick up an important person, that vehicle would be destroyed while the "target" remained safe.
Here's the problem. American property and personnel may be saved by this device - but wherever the explosive goes off, chances are there will be other innocent people around who could get hurt and killed. Are American lives more important to us, in the end, than the local population? Should embassies simply forgo this type of protection, and absorb any terrorist acts directed against them, for the purpose of sparing civilians? What about the civilians in the embassy? I am having difficulty answering these questions.
Say you had this device with you while you were driving through some city associated with terrorist organizations or recent acts. Your job is to actively protect U.S. (or pick your country) interests by using this device to "minesweep" terrorist hangouts and destroy the weapons at the source. Would you test the device by turning it on momentarily? The only devices that would explode are ones built by terrorists, to be sure. But what would the cost in casualties be? What if it was a city like Ramallah, which would probably go up like Nagasaki if you activated the device?