Hacker News Reader

Comment by Vivtek | Hacker News Reader

The difference is this costs 40 € and can clear a couple of mines for that money. Afghanistan is not exactly rolling in cash, so any cheap improvement is a valuable addition to the toolbox - it provides a way for poor communities to do something while they're waiting for America to donate enough money to clean up their mess.

My guess is that demining NGOs will be using something like this soon enough if it proves effective, though, so any donation dollar really is best sent there for maximum effectiveness.

View on HN

Demining organisations already use mine rollers in situations where they make sense. As I said, they use a layered approach, with mine-rollers, vehicles, sniffer dogs, etc used as the circumstances require it.

The problem with communities doing it themselves is it'll give them a false sense of security about the safety of known minefields. This could potentially increase the number of mine-related injuries because far more people will attempt to live in or traverse known minefields which they wrongly believe to have been cleared yet which still contain roughly half of the original mines.

I think you went hyperbolic in your GP post. You said that mine-rollers were "useless" - which they clearly are not if they can clear mines as a first pass (yes given the right terrain).

I disagree. I said 'solutions like this', i.e. mine rollers as a single technique, were useless. I stand by that statement because the stats are quite clear on this as even in ideal conditions (which are seldom present) a roller can only be expected to detonate half the mines in an area. In fact in many areas rollers can't be used at all because of the terrain and vegetation, so demining teams use a combination of other techniques.

This concept is actually worse than useless because of the debris it scatters across a minefield and the false confidence it provides. While I applaud the designer's attempt to create something useful, his lack of domain knowledge has resulted in a design that doesn't solve the problem and may make things worse.

If I come across as bit hyperbolic, it's because I strongly believe that this is a horrible and underreported problem which demands both carefully-considered and effective solutions and acknowledgement of the people whose hard work and sacrifices have made so many places safe again.

It seems silly to laud an ineffective design while there are people out there every day clearing landmines with solutions that work.

Nope, you're doing it again.

You're saying something akin to: 'tyres are useless because cars also need engines; people are already effectively using tyres; often tyres don't work'.

>It seems silly to laud an ineffective design while there are people out there every day clearing landmines with solutions that work. //

Solutions that according to you - strongly implied eve within the parent comment - include rollers.

"Mine rollers are useless [for that purpose] and so should never be used to clear mines under any circumstances."

Yes or no?

I find this debate a bit perplexing: You're asking me to answer a straw man argument that nobody here has made, so I'm not entirely sure what your overall point is.

Mine rollers can be effective for civilian demining, but only in the right type of terrain with the right type of vegetation and when used in concert with other demining techniques. I didn't just imply that it my posts, I stated it outright when asked when and where mine rollers could be effective.

But when used independently, as the Mine Kafon's video shows, mine rollers are useless for civilian demining and, because of the false sense of security they provide, could even be harmful. A minefield that people believe to be cleared, but isn't, is far more dangerous than a minefield that's demarcated and which most people know to avoid.

So I'd amend your provided phrase and say:

"Mine rollers used independently are useless for civilian demining and should not be seen as civilian mine clearance solutions."

I'm not sure how much clearer I could be on this.

You've really squirmed and squeezed to ensure you can still assert the uselessness of the technique whilst still maintaining the counterpoint of it being used and effective; well played.

"Mine rollers can be effective for civilian demining".

So, hang on maybe they're not useless as _djo_ was contending. But wait, why is it they can be effective we ask, oh right it's because they

"are useless for civilian demining".

Now you're being ridiculous. I'm disappointed.

The context of those phrases, which you removed, made it clear enough that the first phrase referred to mine rolling as part of a system of complementary techniques while the second referred to it as a technique used on its own.

By intentionally removing that context so as to attempt to prove the phrases contradictory, you've proven only that you're more interesting in trolling than in debating this seriously. So I see no point in continuing this conversation.

>you've proven only that you're more interesting in trolling than in debating this seriously //

The point was that you started by saying the thing was useless and persisted to try and defend that point despite acceding that similar devices are used and useful.

There was nothing to debate, I simply called you on over-exaggeration and you refuse to accept it is. Fair enough you clearly know more about the domain in question. But the information you've given is the counterpoint to your initial claim.

The reason I quoted without the full context was because that indicated your initial argument. The extended quote was how you adapted your argument against the claim that you were wrongly portraying the true position.

The point is that clearing a couple of mines is not useful and is even harmful.

A patch of land is unusable while mined; useful when cleared, but if it's 50% cleared (or 80% cleared) then it is murderous, because then it gets used, resulting in dead and crippled locals.

>The point is that clearing a couple of mines is not useful and is even harmful. //

A field that you must use to avoid starving has 100 mines in it, you can remove [on average] 55 of those mines using a locally made and affordable device. The field will be used anyway. Would you deploy the device?

You're leading a demining team. A village have asked you to clear a field that they rely on for crops (other areas are too rocky or haven't enough good soil). You can send out some locally produced cheap demining devices first that will remove about 50% of the mines reducing the risk to your team. Would you deploy the device?

"is not useful" you say?

Your position appears to be a counterpoint to a statement that these devices will clear all mines effectively from all areas in all conditions. I've not seen anyone make such a claim. Your position is only tenable when a mined area is not needed by the locals.

The devices, and the beautifully made film, have another purpose which is far from useless too - attracting attention and thence funding for demining projects.

Your argument hinges on the statement "The field will be used anyway." As people are not binary in their decision making. The arguments of others that partial demining will increase the likely hood of use and thus increase the risk of harm is completely valid.

I'm responding to a universal claim by indicating a single instance in which the claim would be wrong, falsification basically. My argument is that those saying this is useless appear to be going against evidence that it has - whilst limited - genuine utility.

The argument for partial demining leading to increased harm requires that land that is mined remain completely unused otherwise or be completely demined. As soon as there is any use then reducing the number of mines statistically [and yes maybe simplistically] will be better - which would you rather, walk across a field of 200 mines or 400 mines?

Professionally demined areas are only cleared to a level of about 99.6% according to the thread so the argument for increased risk of harm still works in that case - more risk from mines when walking in a 'completely' demined area than in an area in which mines have never been placed.

The mine roller looked to be made of three parts: the black core (expensive); the plastic plates (very cheap); and the bamboo poles (cheap as shit).

Provided the weight came mostly from the core and the core never itself got blown up, I'd saw it can clear more than a couple of land mines for the money. Perhaps, a land mine per plastic plate, and if an NGO is paying for Afghani wages, you can roll that baby all day.

Bonus: it creates a relatively "safe" path in its footstep.

Regrettably the only "safe" place is the location where any mine actually exploded, couple of feet away, not so much.

The haphazard nature of the exploration is the big issue and using this would most likely give people a false sense of security. This is an interesting piece of lo-tech design created with the very best of intentions, but it is essentially useless and may even be harmful.

How do you track where it has been?

Does it matter if you blow some mines, if you don't make a single square feet of guarantee mine-free soil?

Coldarchon you are linkdead.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com