Iraqi roadside bombs

[daniel49]

Was listening to the news last night about how these IED devices are getting more sophisticated and are killing more soldiers.
Seems I have heard before many of them are detonated remotely by cellphone.

Was wondering why is it not possible to jam a cell phone transmission say in a 200 yd radius of a humvee?

They electronicaly jam enemy radar and such.
Sure it may cause a few people inconvenience for a while why the convoy passes by but oh well.

 

[DrPizza]

Actually, if its true, that's a great idea.

 

[rivan]

Or, better yet, isn't there a way to detect active cell signals? Get scouts out there to look for them along the roads, find the cell signal's ID and trace it to it's purchaser.

 

[Marthisdil]

Inform the populace that starting today, all cell phone signals are legitimate targets for guided missiles. Program your smart missiles to target the signals. Then see who blows up.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Actually, if its true, that's a great idea.

I actually saw it mentioned in a news blurb at one point that a convoy was using a cellphone jammer to keep people from remotely detonating bombs. They're already doing this.

 

[tommywishbone]

I'd have to talk to the guys building these bombs, but I suspect that a few may have used or attempted to use 'cell phone triggers', but I very much suspect that this 'cell phone' thing was just picked-up on by those who report the news and it makes good reading/headlines. In the capacity that the roadside bombs in Iraq are being used, there are several triggers that require almost zero technology, and are therefore much more attractive & dependable to the bomb builder.

If cell phones are really the cause of the majority of roadside bombs, I'm sure the US military has the capacity & authority to simply destroy or deactivate all cell phone towers and thus shut down the system.

 

[patentman]

If cell phones are really the cause of the majority of roadside bombs, I'm sure the US military has the capacity & authority to simply destroy or deactivate all cell phone towers and thus shut down the system.

Couple points:

1) The transmission from an individual cell phone is not cut off by destroying or deactivating towers. The phone itself emits an rf signal. The signal is weak, hence the need for towers to transmit it over large distances;

2) These bombs are attacking moving convoys. Thus, if cell phones are being used to detonate them, most likely the person detonating the bomb can see the convoy coming, hence if a cell phone is used as a detonator, then it wouldn;t need to transmit a very long distance to do its job

3) I don't think these bombs are or need to be that sophisticated. If they want a remotely detonated device, why not use a generic rf transmitter? Its cheaper.

4) Jamming a cell signal might not do the job. Jamming usually involves sending out a scrambled signal across the spectrum you wish to jam. I.e. if you want to Jam cell phones, you send out a high amplituyde garbled signal at in ranging from .9-1.1 Ghz. As the power of the interfering signal is increased, the distnace from the source of the interfering signal increases. See here. However, if these devices are triggered by a cell signal, the jamming signal itself could detonate the device. the Though the device would go off a little bit further from the convoy the end result is likely that instead of the soldiers in the convoy dyeing, civilians in front of the convoy will.

This is not to say I favor our soldiers being killed over iraqi civilians. Far from it. I'd just like to find a solution that prevents anyone from dying from this crap.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: patentman

If cell phones are really the cause of the majority of roadside bombs, I'm sure the US military has the capacity & authority to simply destroy or deactivate all cell phone towers and thus shut down the system.

3) I don't think these bombs are or need to be that sophisticated. If they want a remotely detonated device, why not use a generic rf transmitter? Its cheaper.

Um, they're a little short on Radio Shack locations in Iraq right now. It's also easier to wire something into the ringer circuitry of a cellphone than to build an RF receiver from scratch.

And destroying/disabling the entire communications infrastructure in Iraq is not really an option, either. Maybe in an isolated area, but you can't exactly turn off Baghdad for extended periods of time.

4) Jamming a cell signal might not do the job. Jamming usually involves sending out a scrambled signal across the spectrum you wish to jam. I.e. if you want to Jam cell phones, you send out a high amplituyde garbled signal at in ranging from .9-1.1 Ghz. As the power of the interfering signal is increased, the distnace from the source of the interfering signal increases. See here. However, if these devices are triggered by a cell signal, the jamming signal itself could detonate the device. the Though the device would go off a little bit further from the convoy the end result is likely that instead of the soldiers in the convoy dyeing, civilians in front of the convoy will.

If you're using a cellphone as a trigger, you're going to tap into its existing circuitry and then set it off by calling the phone (otherwise, you might as well build your own remote detonator). Random EM signals/jammers wouldn't set it off.

 

[tommywishbone]

Good points pm; I didn't realize that the cell phones alone had the power for short distance transmissions. I thought that you always had to have 'service' to call or receive a signal.

Regardless, I don't think the problem of roadside bombs has a solution other than, don't drive down ANY road. It's a mess. Just my $0.02.

 

[patentman]

Um, they're a little short on Radio Shack locations in Iraq right now. It's also easier to wire something into the ringer circuitry of a cellphone than to build an RF receiver from scratch.

I realize that they don't have circuitry components for sale on roadside sands in the desert. I was just trying to make a point. It isn't exactly easy to tap into cell phone circuitry either.

If you're using a cellphone as a trigger, you're going to tap into its existing circuitry and then set it off by calling the phone (otherwise, you might as well build your own remote detonator). Random EM signals/jammers wouldn't set it off.

If using a cell phone as a trigger isn;t a home made remote detonator, what is? As for random EM signal/Jammers not setting the thing off, I'm not so certain. I mean, if the people desigining these things have the skill to use the phone as a detonator based on an incoming signal that triggers the phone to ring, its not a big reach to say that they can probably set the thing to go off upon receipt of a certain amplitude of signal, even if that signal is random..

We can;t under estimate these people over there. They might be nutty enough to blow themselves up to prove their point, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are stupid. If they were dumb, we would have eradicated them long time ago.

 

[Matthias99]

I mean, if the people desigining these things have the skill to use the phone as a detonator based on an incoming signal that triggers the phone to ring

With even the most basic phones, this is basically just snipping/splicing a wire or soldering a connection. If the phone has a headset jack, or supports those stupid cases that light up when the phone rings, you don't even need to open the phone up; you just tap into the external connection it provides. The whole idea of using a cellphone as a remote detonator is that it requires no (or very little) modification or electronics knowledge, and it's not really very suspicious if someone is buying or walking around with a cellphone.

You could build a remote detonator that would go off when someone turned on a cellphone jammer in the area, but if you're going to do that, it's easier to just build it yourself with a 2.4Ghz receiver and some simple electronics. Trying to modify a cellphone's internals to do that would be pointlessly difficult (unless that was your only source of parts). I can't imagine this would be very efficient, either, since it could easily go off long before the intended target gets into range.

 

[DrPizza]

patentman, you sure that all calls don't go through towers?

If you call directly from one phone to another phone and make a connection due to proximity, how does the wireless phone company know to bill you (if the call is made during peak hours )

 

[alienal99]

that's not what he is saying. yes, all signals go through towers. he is saying that the phone itself emits a signal, it is just too weak to go directly from your cell to mine, so towers relay the signal.

 

[dkozloski]

All that is needed to bring this idea to a halt is a viable telemarketing industry. Who's going to use a cell phone for a bomb trigger if some clown is about to call your number at any time without warning to sell you a trip to Disney World.

 

[Mday]

signals used to jam other signals use the same bandwidth with higher power output.

the best thing to do is just go around with an emitter, and try to set off the bombs remotely ourselves. maybe we'll wind up blowing up some asshats putting these things together.

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
Good points pm; I didn't realize that the cell phones alone had the power for short distance transmissions. I thought that you always had to have 'service' to call or receive a signal.

Regardless, I don't think the problem of roadside bombs has a solution other than, don't drive down ANY road. It's a mess. Just my $0.02.

the cell phones have enough (even plenty of) power to talk to other mobile phones in the area - what they lack is the possibillity to do so. While adding a remote detonation device to the ringer circuit of a mobile phone is something that a blind with two left hands can do in short time, modifying the phone to talk without a tower (if at all possible) requires a lot of advanced programming on a otherwise electronic black box (an integrated circuit)

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: alienal99
that's not what he is saying. yes, all signals go through towers. he is saying that the phone itself emits a signal, it is just too weak to go directly from your cell to mine, so towers relay the signal.

While the signals might be too weak if you want to talk with someone on the other side of the tower coverage, they are strong enough to talk with someone in the neighbourhood. However, the reason every cell phone talks to a tower is that every call must be billed (either to you or to the other party of the conversation). This could be reason enough to safeguard the cell phone electronics/communication processor in order to make extremely difficult/impossible to talk directly with a different device

 

[patentman]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
patentman, you sure that all calls don't go through towers?

I wasn;t focusing on using the "phone aspect" of the cell phone per se. Every cell phone is capable of emitting a low level signal outside of the network. This is because ever cell phone contains a low power transmitter. I was focusing more on the use of that signal to trigger the detonator the the use of a phone call.

Is this more difficult then using the "phone" aspect of the cellphone? Probably, but that wasn't really my point either. I was trying to take the discussion beyond the simple solution of jamming a cell signal and move on to the next likely problem, which is that when these guys suddenly discover their bombs aren't going off as planned, they will likely change the manner in which the device is triggered. What I've suggested is merely a possibility.

Also, having worked for several years at the Naval Research Lab designing radar cross section reduction (stealth) materials for the NAvy, I've had plenty of opportunity to see the leap frog effect that occurs in all war related technologies. I.e. Someone designs something to kill someone, then countermeasures are developed, then something else is developed to overcome the countermeasures, then new countermeasures are developed.....I'd be willing to bet just about anything that if this war goes on long enough we'll see the same thing with these rioadside bombs.

 

[Titan]

I've heard that instead of cell phones, they use garage door openers too.

Pretty scary warfare if you think about it. How do you stop a plain-clothed person who just pushes a button when your Humvee, APC, or even tank drives right over it?

 

[daniel49]

heres an interesting link that describes a little about the subject.
kinda along the lines one of you were sharing on how measures and countermeasures evolve.
http://www.vnis.com/story.cfm?textnewsid=1685

 

[Particle]

I was thinking to broaden the topic a little. What about outsiders just leaving the country (The getting out of dodge theory)? It would create a black hole. The insurgents would rush in and create a Theocracy but would it be that bad since it would just be another Iran or Syria minus Saddam and Sons? Iran and Syria aren't the best but better then what were before and semi-stable. Plus there is much talk going around that the democracy wont work because of the many divisions in the country on top of it already being controlled by a Theocracy. The Clerics have final say. So the democracy might be removed anyway but it really would have little impact.

 

[patentman]

Originally posted by: Particle
I was thinking to broaden the topic a little. What about outsiders just leaving the country (The getting out of dodge theory)? It would create a black hole. The insurgents would rush in and create a Theocracy but would it be that bad since it would just be another Iran or Syria minus Saddam and Sons? Iran and Syria aren't the best but better then what were before and semi-stable. Plus there is much talk going around that the democracy wont work because of the many divisions in the country on top of it already being controlled by a Theocracy. The Clerics have final say. So the democracy might be removed anyway but it really would have little impact.

If you could guarantee that the fanatics over there would stay in the resultant country then your idea would be viable. But of course in this day and age there is no way you can make that guarantee.

I dont't know if I would like to build "just another" Iran. In the 80's news clips were filled for years with video clips of anti aircraft tracer fire over the skies of Lebanon. Parts of that conflict are still ongoing today. Remember the news clips from the 1st gulf war of Baghdad at night when the U.S. was bombing the crap out of the city? Lebanon was like that periodically for over a decade.

I believe the HBO show "Not Necessarily the News" (an 80's HBO show kind've like the news clip portion of satruday night live) put it best when they ran a parody of an ad for tourism to Lebanon where they showed a video clip of Lebanon filled with tracer fire while in the background they played serene music and a narrator states boldy "Come to Lebanon, Where Everyday is the Fourth of July!"

We should just get L Ron Hubbard over there and get him to convice all the Hezbollah and other militant groups that aliens are floating in their blood. Tom Cruise would be over there in a heart beat.... Hey, the scientologists might be a little wacky, but at least they are peaceful (at least if your not a psychiatrist).

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Particle
I was thinking to broaden the topic a little. What about outsiders just leaving the country (The getting out of dodge theory)? It would create a black hole. The insurgents would rush in and create a Theocracy but would it be that bad since it would just be another Iran or Syria minus Saddam and Sons? Iran and Syria aren't the best but better then what were before and semi-stable. Plus there is much talk going around that the democracy wont work because of the many divisions in the country on top of it already being controlled by a Theocracy. The Clerics have final say. So the democracy might be removed anyway but it really would have little impact.

broadening beyond a highly technical point of view , but I would hardly call creating more Syrias and Irans an improvement beyond hussien.

 

[tommywishbone]

After reading the replies to the OP and thinking a bit, I confess to being totally wrong about cell phones as triggers, they would work fine for the pupose discussed. The system of towers and relays is completely meaningless.

 

[Particle]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Particle
I was thinking to broaden the topic a little. What about outsiders just leaving the country (The getting out of dodge theory)? It would create a black hole. The insurgents would rush in and create a Theocracy but would it be that bad since it would just be another Iran or Syria minus Saddam and Sons? Iran and Syria aren't the best but better then what were before and semi-stable. Plus there is much talk going around that the democracy wont work because of the many divisions in the country on top of it already being controlled by a Theocracy. The Clerics have final say. So the democracy might be removed anyway but it really would have little impact.

broadening beyond a highly technical point of view , but I would hardly call creating more Syrias and Irans an improvement beyond hussien.

Sorry if I went off topic but can't I discuss the Social Sciences, as well, instead of just hardware etc?

Have the Iraqis to take over the border towns and then use sattelite on the borders to stop the insurgency.