Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Is the the difference between IEDs and landmines really only: (1) organized assembly line type manufacture versus made on a one at a time basis (2) landmine = set by an organized military force, IED = set by irregulars or unorganized forces. Thus the difference between mines and IEDs is politically based versus really different. I am no expert nor fluent about these things, so only raising for discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fremte (talk • contribs) 16:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
What is the difference between an IED and a booby trap. Booby trap seems like an older term. When did IED come into usage, was it in use before the iraq war? Should the IED and booby trap articles be merged. Booby trap may be a more general term as it may not require explosives as the method of producing injury. The booby trap page seems to imply that the US military used the term booby trap During the Vietnam period. Geo8rge (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I am wondering, looking at this article, if there's any chance of having a section on the origins of the word "IED". Despite the length and historical background in this article, it is my belief that the term "IED" was not actually widely used until the 2003 Iraq war, no? That therefore calls into question the relevance of much of the historic stuff to the actual word "IED" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.220.172.118 (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The types of IED are not really specified on ingredients: eg ANFO, ... perhaps the anarchist's cookbook may be used to make a good division herein also add "plaster bomb"; something I saw in Burn Notice episode "Family Business" (see http://www.tv.com/Burn+Notice/Family+Business/episode/1088331/recap.html?tag=content_wrap;episode_recap ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.167.19 (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Either this page should be removed or merged with Bomb, because every device covered in this article could be considered a "bomb". I feel calling a brief article on blowing people up "bomb, and an in-depth article on blowing people up "IED" is a little counter-productive. I also take offense to the inclusion of "Improvised Radioactive Device". Descriptions such as the one included in this article only serve to bolster a myth, as the article Dirty_bomb states "Up until now, no dirty bomb has ever been found or used", "the radiation health risks are small and comparable to the health risk from smoking five packages of cigarettes or eating ice cream on a daily basis", and "Policy, science and media may inform the public about the real danger and thus reduce the possible psychological and economic effects". The term "IED" should only be included in List of government and military acronyms, as wikipedia is not a military publication. 208.68.116.246 (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I would assert that an "IED" is a distinct sub-class of Bomb. As an Ammunition Technician with a number of years technical experience of both Military Explosive Ordnance of all types, and IED, I would recommend leaving the IED article as is. The Bomb article, however, is in need of a great deal of expansion and revision as it is a very shallow and inexact attempt to cover a much wider subject. (Smallroach (talk) 09:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC))
This merge is completely nonsensical. Surely, something about the Qassam rockets can be included in the IED article but this is a unique phenomena unto itself that has had seriously implications on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I suggest that this merge proposition be dropped immediately. ShamWow (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I know that during the American Civil War on at least one occasion the Confederates buried an artillery shell in a road connected to a telegraph switch; In the one case I sort-of remember they waited until a Union Calvary patrol was passing over, then detonated. If anyone can elaborate on this incident, it should be included in the history section. 174.25.49.114 (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON
I removed "Fortunately there where no casualties" since I consider that to be putting value into something that should be neutral. Some people might be disappointed that no one was hurt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.226.69 (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The statement wrongly states that IEDs were used by a terrorist group named Indian Mujahideen. It is not yet confirmed about the source of attack. The statement should be replaced by "On 13th of July 2011, three IEDs were used by terrorists to carry out a coordinated attack on the city of Mumbai, killing 20 people and injuring 113 more." Amrithraj (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
¿Is it really necessary to include the section on terrorism in this article? It give the article a skew in terms of neutrality, as IED’s can be developed by anyone, whether they are terrorists or not, and a few (not terribly noteworthy) IED’s have even been used by standing armies after the advent of the Industrial Revolution; The trenches of WWI and jungles of Viet Nam are the examples that come to mind (including use by Americans in VN). Perhaps a section in history specifically addressing their use by terrorist would be more appropriate.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
cwreplicas.com/page28dnew.html has pictures. One. Looks like the piece was made a month ago.
helium.com/items/994496-technology-and-inventions-of-the-civil-war/print has text:
Land Mines
Confederates used shells buried shallowly in the ground that discharged when their position was changed, thus the first land mines. The idea is credited to Brigadier General Gabriel Rains (Virginia War Museum, 2003).Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
the 'by delivery mechanism' section should probably have a link to (or merge in the content from) Bicycle bomb EdwardLane (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
From the current news reports, the use of IED's is becoming very active part of the current conflict in Syria.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The terms "Belfast confetti" and "shipyard confetti" have been around since at least the early 1900s, well before the use of scrap metal or metal fasteners as the payload in IEDs. The terms refer to the use of metal debris such as rivets (large ship-building rivets similar to those used in bridges if one wants a mental image) during sectarian riots in Belfast. The term arose from the use of such missiles by Protestant workers at the Harland and Wolff shipyards to ethnically cleanse the H&W labor force and workers' neighborhoods of Catholics.
Neither term is commonly (if ever) used to refer to fragmentation materials incorporated into anti-personnel IEDs.
Nor is "shrapnel" correct. Shrapnel has a specific meaning in military ordnance: it's a load of large lead balls used as the payload in the Shrapnel shell, named for its inventor, Henry Shrapnel. The shrapnel shell basically functioned as a large flying shotgun: the balls were ejected from the front of the shell by a propelling charge inside, producing a tight unidirectional pattern completely unlike the nultidirectional dispersion of an IED using high explosives and a wrapping of fragmentation material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.209.147 (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I would like a page or an article that is dedicated to the Iraq IED's. They evolved in their uses, materials and operations due to the logistical armor battle and our unit TTP's. For "Iraq" to get only such a small portion on this page when I guarantee 95% of the IED's set off in the past decade could be attributed to OIF's theatre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.96.21 (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The term 2003-2010 Iraq War bothers me. I understand that there are no "combat troops" in Iraq any more but "2003-2010 Iraq War" implies that the war is over, which it's not. Normally I wouldn't care about something like this but American troops are getting killed and harmed by IEDs just as they were last year. "2003-2010 Iraq War" just seems wrong to me. I think something like the "Second Iraq War" would be a lot more clear.
-Zac March 9th 2011, 3:50AM (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.129.3 (talk)
Which millitary experts? Furthermore, I am sceptical of this line "...The expertise for this new generation came likely from foreign fighters and the devices were being mass produced in India on an industrial level and supplied in Afghanistan through the Indian Consulates in Afghanistan..." The Indian Consulate? Are you joking? Where is the reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.82.142 (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The section about IEDs made from glass jars appears to have used the term 'Mason jar', which evidently has been changed, probably by the trademark owner, to "Ball Mason jars" ... somehow I am not sure that authentic brand-name Ball Mason jars with thick Ball Mason glass were actually used by insurgents in the Vietnam War, so I suppose this should be changed to 'glass canning jars' or some generic term like that.
Roches (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, <redacted>, here you go, a whole new section: The use of modified artillery shells, “cannon balls,” or whatever you want to call them is so far from new that it pre-dates even Cordite. It’s not a “discussion” it’s a statement of fact. The only reason I didn’t edit the article itself is because I have forgotten some of the facts surrounding the event and don’t want to add more dis-information (as the article is already filled with ENOUGH bullshit). (Yes, I know I violated the “assume good faith” rule- It was already broken. <redacted> 174.25.49.114 (talk) 05:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON
Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 07:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)If I may offer a bit of unsanctioned advice: Assume nothing. Don't assume good faith, even though that's something of a rule here on Wikipedia. Don't assume that another editor has a particular intent, whether "good" or "bad". Don't even assume that another editor is a human rather than a dog. Why? Because when you make any assumption, even one of good faith, you are creating for yourself an illusion from which the truth may disappoint you. More pertinently, you expect a series of interactions from your fellow editors that may or may not be fulfilled. Ultimately, you reduce your fellow editors to your own prejudices and preconceptions. If instead you assume nothing, nobody will ever correctly accuse you of assuming bad faith, and you will never fall short of the ideal of assuming good faith. Indeed, it's the best way out of that thought trap.
I'd like to remove the Detection and disarmament subsection and integrate it into the Defeating the Device section of the Counter-IED efforts page. Is that a good idea? What should I leave behind? dbabbitt (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Improvised explosive device. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Improvised explosive device. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I see that "homemade bomb" redirects to "Improvised explosive device", and that the article typically uses the phrase "Improvised explosive device" while mentionning "homemade bomb". I am wondering about this: I had never heard the term "Improvised explosive device" before the US invasion of Iraq, when is suddenly became proeminent in US media (for context, that what the era of "homicide bombing" and such attempts at actively and openly shaping the vocabulary of the media for public relations/propaganda purposes).
The article, at present, mentions that the term originates in the British military circles of the 70s: the phrase is thus administrative jargon and politically loaded from its inception.
I would like to initiate a little bit of reflexion on an alternative term that would be more neutral and natural than "Improvised explosive device". The phrase "homemade bomb" is the first that springs to my mind, though it does feel a little bit tengential to things like artillery shells repurposed to explode on command without being fired. Bottom line is, I feel like anything that replaces something as awkard as "explosive device" for "bomb" is euphemistical adminstrative jargon gone badle wrong, and should not be accepted uncritically on Wikipedia. Rama (talk) 06:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Improvised explosive device. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Improvised explosive device. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
"Once apon a time there was a chicken who didn't like people so he made a IED and that is how IED's were made. To be continued."
Its safe to say thats irrelevant to the topic... ThatOneDoge (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Improvised explosive device. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{dead link}}
tag to http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/ssq/2007/Winter/arkin.pdf{{dead link}}
tag to https://www.defenceiq.com/video.cfm?id=682{{dead link}}
tag to https://jknife.jieddo.mil/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Improvised explosive device. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Improvised explosive device. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
It would be good to tell the weight of explosive and other materials, and the explosive chemicals used. This is essential for comparing IEDs to manufactured EDs and evaluating the damage they do. Ttulinsky 21:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttulinsky (talk • contribs)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.