Talk:Improvised explosive device
|This is not a forum for general discussion about Improvised explosive device. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Improvised explosive device at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Improvised explosive device article.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
|WikiProject Disaster management|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Threads with no replies in 60 days may be automatically moved.|
- 1 Earlier Uses
- 2 Earlier Uses New Section
- 3 2003-2010 Iraq War?
- 4 United States In January 2011
- 5 India - IEDs were used but the suspect is still unknown
- 6 Terrorism Table
- 7 There, you're welcome
- 8 bikes as delivery mechanism
- 9 Syria
- 10 "Shipyard confetti" or "shrapnel" don't belong here
- 11 In January 2010, it was reported by military experts....
- 12 Ball Mason jars
- 13 Move Detection and disarmament section to Main Article
Earlier Uses New Section
- From Weaponology "Booby Traps"; At the Battle Of Yorktown artillery shells were buried in the ground by retreating Confederates with the percussion caps set pointed up; If a Union soldier stepped on it, it exploded. So ya, you're STILL wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
2003-2010 Iraq War?
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 188.8.131.52 (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 184.108.40.206 (talk)
United States In January 2011
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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
India - IEDs were used but the suspect is still unknown
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)
- IF you'd read the news report cited in that section, Mumbai police is already suspecting the Indian Mujahideen, who else can be reponsible now since none has came forward and be a man about it. Or do you have a new revelation you want to share with us, I'm all ears. Thoughts? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 20:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- News reporters often LIE. Until verifiable evidence is presented, it can not be assumed who is resposible.
¿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)
There, you're welcome
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:
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)
bikes as delivery mechanism
"Shipyard confetti" or "shrapnel" don't belong here
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 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
In January 2010, it was reported by military experts....
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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Ball Mason jars
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.
- I HAVE made bombs like these (didn't detonate it in a way that anyone could be hurt, just made it for demonstration purpose) using a drinking glass (reasobaly thick glass, but not "bomb worthy"). A generic term is more appropriate (and less biased).
Move Detection and disarmament section to Main Article
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)