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.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: hypersonic glider, icbms, quadcopter, weapons


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Beta (profile), 9 May 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.)

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Nick Taylor, 9 May 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.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Greg G (profile), 9 May 2011 @ 6:18pm

      Re:

      citation, please?

      love how you just give stats with no support.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Michael Lockyear, 10 May 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?

        link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Greg G (profile), 10 May 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.

          link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Greg G (profile), 10 May 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?

          link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Greg G (profile), 9 May 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.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Michael Lockyear, 10 May 2011 @ 1:41am

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

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    abc gum, 9 May 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/

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 9 May 2011 @ 7:30pm

    Interesting How The US ...

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

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 9 May 2011 @ 10:13pm

    Which Reminds Me ...

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

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rekrul, 10 May 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...

    link to this | view in chronology ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.