"IEDs why not bombs" Topic

I am no expert in things military or the English language, but why call a bomb an IED?

A pipe bomb is improvised, a molotov cocktail is improvised, a van full of semtex is improvised.
We called these things bombs.

Why are IEDs not called bombs?
Is it a case of us trying to be clever and give things labels and names when we already have a word that works well?

Will we have non-IEDs, you know, shells?

I don't get it….

The love of obfusticating acronyms?

Possibly an attempt to make them sound more amateurish and hence less dangerous than "mines".

Martin Rapier wrote:

The love of obfusticating acronyms?

"Obfusticating"? Nice word, probably sounds even better in German.

I think it is necessary to change military jargon every generation so that the young thrusters of today can distinguish themselves clearly from the old fogeys of yesterday.

A less charitable view of such jargon is that it is to provide a pseudo-intellectual fog around a person's utterances so that the lack of coherent thought behind them is harder to be sure of.

angelbarracks asked:

Will we have non-IEDs, you know, shells?

What used to be called shelling, mortaring or rocketing is now called IDF, for InDirect Fire. It still confuses me when I think I hear that Allied forces in Afghanistan have been attacked by the Israeli Defence Forces.

All the best,

John.

I think, in the case of an IED, it's the I that's important – it's made up of whatever was to hand, as opposed to being a proper landmine, and as such can be difficult to identify and/or disarm.

Presumably, IDF covers shelling, mortar fire and rocket fire.

I suspect that another part of it is a desire for precision in language and in categorization. Hence, everything has a long and descriptive name that ends up being abbreviated into something far less transparent in order to save time and breath. Scientific jargon arises in the same way. For example, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 becomes shortened to HER2 and is pronounced like the words "her two".

While we're on the subject, do infantry these days travel in MICVs; FIVs; even APCs ?

Doug

Economy of language, perhaps?

An IED can be anything. From a bunch of 155mm shells rigged together, to a box with C4 or a car full of explosives. Besides it's deadly dangerous the grunts on the spot don't know what exactly is, until the guys that are experts at deactivation of those things show up… or the thing goes off. Hence IED. See? A non-commital word that saves you from defining an explosive device that you don't actually know what the hell it is. And also save time on the wire, I guess.

IED is a proper term describing an explosive device which consists of a collection of explosive devices being triggered through a 'non standard' method.

A mine is designed to be a mine, a mortar shell is designed to be fired through the air and land, not be buried and triggered by cell phone.

I think the widespread use the term IED on the news however, serves 2 purposes:
1. It makes the enemy seem 'less smart', they aren't using bombs or shells, they are having to 'improvise'
2. It makes reporters seem cleverer than they actually are.

I am not having a go at anyone here but you have all described a bomb… IED just seems pointless, call a spade a spade and a bomb a bomb.

I am inclined to agree with the reporters cleverer comment above.

The military likes acronyms, possibly because they sound more "technical" in the sea of paperwork that all soldiers swim in.

The press likes them because they sound "sexier" on the TV.

Another advantage is that by giving them a new name, they can pretend that they are a new thing. The only new thing about them is their prevalence, and the fact that they are almost the only effective weapon the enemy has (these two things are related).
-Kle.

It's simply because the military has a language all its own. One possible scenario is that the term IED may have appeared in a training manual and was used to distinguish between an ad hoc type of weapon that might not be recognizable and manufactured military ordnance. Thus the term makes its way into the lexicon of the soldiers and then the reporters who are embedded with them. Naturally, it then makes its way into our everyday vernacular via the media.

But, yes, it is a bomb.

The love of obfusticating acronyms?

Actually it is a more precise term than "bomb". It is a clarifying term, which is the opposite of obfuscating. Is there really anything confusing about the words "Improvised", "Explosive", or "Device"?

Because if you just called them "bombs" you'd have folks wondering "where did the insurgents get aircraft?"

>>> IED is a proper term describing an explosive device which consists of a collection of explosive devices being triggered through a 'non standard' method.

When the Soviets wrote about *using* them (not just encountering them in *their* Afghanistan Adventure), they called them off-route mines, or remotely-activated mines. And so did we.

>>> 1. It makes the enemy seem 'less smart', they aren't using bombs or shells, they are having to 'improvise'

Bingo.

Allen

""Improvised", "Explosive", or "Device"?"

On their own no, but when simply used as 'IED' then yes. As John said, it could just be viewed as pseudo intellectual posturing.

Why on earth is an L85A2 an 'Individual Weapon' and not a 'rifle'.

I first came across the term obfustication in the context of software engineering, deliberately mangling code libraries so the uninitiated couldn't read them.

FIBUA, MOUT or street fighting anyone?

The love of obfusticating acronyms?,/q>

IED is not an acronym. It is an abbreviation.

I would think calling it an improvised expolsive device is due to the fact that it is a non-standard weapon; it can be made from any type of explosive device, be it plastic explosive, shells, or what have you. Bombs would only be one of the possible components.

It's just easier to call it an IED as opposed to detailing its exact components each time – besides the fact that once detonated it would be even more difficult/time consuming to determine its components.

You can just as easily call it a booby-trap. The military likes "precise terms, used precisely", so IED makes more sense.

Can't imagine why anyone would question this, or what could possibly be "read into" this description, but to each his own.

I'll reserve comment on whether it's a reference to the enemy's intelligence.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Once a mine was dug under a wall, and filled (in an improvised manner) with whatever combustible materials one had to hand. Later, a mine was dug and filled (in an improvised manner) with whatever explasive materials one had to hand. Later still, in an industrial age, specific mines were designed and produced for land and naval warfare. Yet mines continued to be produced (in an improvised manner) with whatever explosive materials one had to hand. Funny thing: we continued to call them mines, trained to clear them and clear them like mines, and trained to make them and actualy make them--as mines.

Once they were guerrillas. Later, if we were backing them, they were freedom fighters. Later still, if they're agin' us, they're terrorists and insurgents.

Words have power. Those who exercise power know that.

Allen

The word is obfuscate.

I am not having a go at anyone here but you have all described a bomb

Yes, because that description is exactly like a Mk 82, or a Mk 84, or a JDAM, or a B83, or a CBU-72, or the classic iron pipe filled with black powder.

What? They're all bombs. Why not just call them that?

They do indeed and invest accordingly. Frank Kitson's book Low Intensity Operations is a useful example or some of the studies by Prof' John Curtice. Its a whole world.

A consequence of this is that if you really want to know what is going on you have to be able to decode certain formulations.

A non military recent example from the UK would be 'quantative easing' it sounds like an effective laxative but it means printing more money than you can back. Obviously the latter causes outrage while the former is met with puzzlement. Job done.

So IED while a fair enough description still conveys somewhat misleadingly imho, the impression of amateurishness in the opposition to NATO. In doing so it provides subliminal comfort. Once again Job done.

Allen, I think the heirarchy is Freedom Fighters (They are ours), then Guerillas/Insurgents (We are not sure yet/need to maintain distance) and finally Terrorists (We don't like them).

Once your terrorists are redesignated insurgents look out for a political deal.

Mk 82, or a Mk 84

Sorry I did not know what those are. So I had a quick Google, they are bombs. So yes the media should call them bombs in my opinion. Why use specific language that the general populace will not understand or care for.

I don't think people care what make/model of bomb killed our soldiers. The fact a bomb killed them I imagine will be sufficient information.

"The word is obfuscate."

That is indeed a word, however English is a rich language.

obfustication:

link

I believe this is a north american plot to expand the colonial version of english faster than the Queens english.

IED is the 21st Century term for "Boobytrap" … Either way … it's a bad thing …

This whole discussion over whether the term IED is neccessary reminds me of the habit of journalists calling anything with tracks and a gun a "tank."

It occurs to me that calling it an "IED" represents an economy of language: short, to the point, and descriptive. Especially for the EOD guys whose safety and well being may depend on knowing exactly what they are dealing with.

Damon.

It's about being accurate – not obfuscation.

They're called IEDs, because that is the accurate term. An EOD team needs to have a good idea of what it is they're expecting to deal with (or what it was that caused the damage), so 'IED' is a far more accurate term than 'bomb', which correctly only refers to ballistically-propelled aerial ordnance.

A 'pipe bomb' is an IED – so is a van full of semtex. They are not bombs. IEDs then have a plethora of sub-categories.

A Molotov cocktail is an incendiary device – not a bomb or IED.

The press (and politicians) love to use military terms that they have barely any understanding of. Some years ago, I had the pleasure of hearing the Defence Secretary trying to be 'down with the military kids', in referring to a BFOT in a press briefing (pronounced 'Bee-Fot'), not knowing that it stood for 'Big -Off Tent'. :o)

Short? I can say "mine" in one syllable; pronouncing "I-E-D" takes three. As I mentioned above, EOD guys *used* to know what "mine" could mean, and it was no more and no less a generic term than the new acronym. "IED" tells you nothing until you arrive on site and begin to examine it.

Allen

"Seeing as how the V.P. is such a V.I.P., shouldn't we keep the P.C. on the Q.T.? 'Cause if it leaks to the V.C. he could end up M.I.A., and then we'd all be put out in K.P. "

Still one of my favorite movie lines.

>>> They're called IEDs, because that is the accurate term. An EOD team needs to have a good idea of what it is they're expecting to deal with (or what it was that caused the damage), so 'IED' is a far more accurate term than 'bomb', which correctly only refers to ballistically-propelled aerial ordnance.

Yet an unexploded aerial bomb, buried in the roadway and fitted with an activating mechanism, is an IED.

I do not believe that "IED" is in any way a term that provides accurate meaning. It was created for the same reason that "panel" and "option" are combined in phrases in current political discourse: to satisfy an agenda.

Allen

A mine isn't an IED – unless it's of the home-made variety.

So a home-made mine is a mine, not an IED? Sounds like a circular path we're on…

JCS Pub 1-02 definition: "A device placed or fabricated in an improvised manner incorporating destructive, lethal, noxious, pyrotechnic, or incendiary chemicals and designed to destroy, incapacitate, harass, or distract. It may incorporate military stores, but is normally devised from non-military components."

That "normally" would require the exclusion of the most common examples of the type of device used from the Second World War to date: in Vietnam, in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation, in Iraq. It is either irresponsibly inaccurate, or intended to mislead.

Allen

Sorry Allen, but I don't follow your logic. We agree that IED is used as a general catch-all by the press – often inaccurately.

The Forces use a plethora of sub-categories to accurately describe the different varieties of IED (because there are a myriad of different varieties), most of which go way over the heads of the press. But they're all still loosely-termed IEDs unless they're unexploded ordnance or mines.

No, a home-made mine (e.g. an explosive device using a couple of saw blades as a pressure plate) is by definition, an IED.

>>> No, a home-made mine (e.g. an explosive device using a couple of saw blades as a pressure plate) is by definition, an IED.

It would, if it *normally* was devised from non-military components. But that is not what history shows us.

Allen

I might also add that the term IED has been used by British forces for decades due to our regular encounters with PIRA nastiness. Our colonial cousins have only recently had to start dealing with such things and they probably picked up the term from us.

I refer to the Oxford English Dictionary which defines a bomb:

"a container of explosive or incendiary material, designed to explode on impact or when detonated by a timing or remote-control device"

so vans full of semtex, molotov cocktails etc are in fact bombs, as is an IED.

Yes, that is the origin, and it was applied correctly in that context. You were dealing with primarily Semtex acquired through donations from… no, better not go there.

I'm going to bow out now. The times past when it was my job to write and attempt to educate the U.S. Army on such subjects is so far gone that what we published is no longer available in the Combined Arms Research Library at Fort Leavenworth. So:

"I think it is necessary to change military jargon every generation so that the young thrusters of today can distinguish themselves clearly from the old fogeys of yesterday."

…must be true.

Allen

I hate acronyms when they're not defined. IED, when the term become common in the media, was at least defined for us almost every time.

In the 5150 rules there are a bunch of weapons with 'BA' in front of them… am I supposed to assume that it stands for "badass", or 'powerful'? Why not say 'heavy pisto'l or 'advanced pistol'? I'm pretty sure the rules never tell me what BA stands for.

Part of what makes Stargrunt II hard for me to pick up is the reliance on acronyms for everything.

It gives a dignified sounding name to the thing that has just blown up the troops that you had no have a method of detection or prevention.

I wonder if you would send in a bomb disposal team to get rid of one you did detect?

I'm beginning to think this argument (discussion?) is about as useful as my observation on Kate Gosslin….

:-)

Call it whatever you want guys. It goes "boom" (or is it "bang"?). Oh no, I've started another terminological argument!

Sorry, but I do have one final question. In this Brave New World of Humpty Dumpty terminology ("'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'")--is this an IED or a homicide bomber?

link

Allen

This is a very silly discussion.

This reminds me of the terrorist at Christmas that was charged with having a weapon of mass destruction because he had an improvised explosive device about his person on board an aircraft

I had always thought that term only refered to the likes of nuclear weapons

It seems the language is being devalued.

So did the Japanese in WW2 has many 100s of weapons of mass destruction (Kamikaze)

Thanks for all this, next time I am being briefed by one of our EOD chaps and he mentions IEDs I shall smile to myself knowing that he is wrong, we have been wrong for the past 20-30 years and should in fact be talking about bombs. I will point out this thread and I am sure that they will be very impressed,

Tally Ho!

You guys can split all the hairs you want but at the end of the day it's pretty simple. It used to be called a booby trap but "IED" sounds more formal/serious.

To me IED means something purposely set to kill me or my buddies. It's not something accidently left over from a recent attack or a past conflict.

I've seen both unexploded ordenance from a previous conflict and IEDs in the same place. It's very important to differentiate them. I can damn well guarantee the farmers don't set IEDs along side the road for you to dispose of. (Well if they do, they are no longer farmers, they are enemy combatants).

So here's my definition – if a farmer would set it alongside the road, it's not an IED. If the enemy sets it alongside the road, it is.

Perhaps it would be more satisfying to call them "hillbilly bombs," but then again, maybe not…

Damon.

"I'm pretty sure the rules never tell me what BA stands for. "

Something very similar to the BFG 9000 in 'Doom'. Big ing Gun.

Allen:

It's an IED. But you can call it broccoli if you want.

However, if – God forbid – you find yourself in the situation where you are driving and you see something like this coming at you, and you call EOD to help you out, using the word "broccoli" won't get you much assistance.

"Help, I have a dog with a whole bunch of broccoli tied to it coming at me…"

==========================================================

It can't be a suicide bomber, since dogs can't make the decision to commit suicide.

A dog is not an explosive weapon, until you tie explosives to it (that's an Improvisation, by the way).

And yes, words I use mean exactly what I choose them to mean.