"IEDs why not bombs" Topic

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

And I would have considered ability to improvise a sign of smartness…

"…next time I am being briefed by one of our EOD chaps…"

Right. Would that be an Ammunition Technician or a Bomb Disposal Officer?

I'd shoot the damn dog.

Allen

"Right. Would that be an Ammunition Technician or a Bomb Disposal Officer?"

I don't really care as long as we get the information we require to get the task in hand completed safely.

"I'd shoot the damn dog"

Airsoft or paintball?

Tally Ho!

"Airsoft or paintball?"

No. But I'd feel sorry for the dog.

I think the military have an even greater love of TLA's than most other organisations….
They are bombs but by calling it an IED de-horrors it to a certain extent--Likewise "collateral damage" and "support structure" are euphamisms for women, children and old people..

IIRC wasn't the term "Torpedo" also used to describe similar devices in the 1800s? Especially during the US Civil War. Robert

So the term 'IED' is a plot by the evil military industrial complex… Don't be silly.

As has been said, it's a military term that has been used by the armed forces for decades to define a particular variety of threat, but has now been picked up and over-used by the press. Putting a paranoid slant on it is frankly bizarre.

KC, yes, a 'torpedo' was originally a term to describe a defensive mine.

And from what I understand not just a "defensive mine" but other explosive devices including boobytraps. Robert

Rejoice in the sophistry!

The language evolves. The word "bomb" at one time referred to any man-made purposely explosive instrument. Nowadays it has a specific military meaning:

From link :
1. Military. a projectile, formerly usually spherical, filled with a bursting charge and exploded by means of a fuze, by impact, or otherwise, now generally designed to be dropped from an aircraft.

But what about other constructions or assemblages that explode? Well, we call those generally "explosive devices". That's not really any doublespeak, it's pretty literal, as in EXPLOSIVE because it explodes and DEVICE as in it didn't sprout up fully formed … no, someone devised it.

But the military trains people in this stuff. Military personnel who know what they're doing, who use components from military stores, who transport and deliver and set off these devices in accordance with proper procedures … they deserve to be recognized. After all, they're doing it right, they built a proper exposive device.

What about people without access to that same training and supply chain and deployment methods and delivery personnel? Well, to the military mind, they are not doing it wholly right. Somewhere in the process, the deviser has to IMPROVISE.

Thus the name describes exactly what it is: an Improvised Explosive Device.

Same reason many of our esteemed gaming collegues can not simply refer to a tank as a tank, but insist on breaking down the nomenclature. Words have specific meaning, and while we could simply describe every form of explosive device simply as "bomb", that fails to convey the precise nature of its origin. Much like the further insistence of using the term ACU, DPM, BDU, BDOG, MARPAT, Chocolate chip, DCU, splinter, multicam etc versus "cammies"; as well why we refer to "guns" by their particular nomenclature, "bullets" as ammunition, hummers or even humvs by particular nomenclature, be it 998, 1151, 1114. Feel free to refer to items within our domain as you wish, but then we may just look at you like we have no idea what you're talking about.
Ours is a profession of arms and as such we have our own language, it is also in part to keep us from sounding like hackneyed amateurs. Besides IED is easier than "two 120mm rockets with possible booster charge, victim initiated by means of a saw blade pressure plate, a detonator of unknown origin and a four d-cell battery pack which resulted in a mobility kill of an 1151, and minor injuries to the crew" or in the venacular "they hit a bomb which blew up their humv".

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

This.

Calling it an IED implies that the creator is semantically and semiotically different than the set to which the non-IED user belongs.

Simply put , "them damn sand-******* aint smart nuff to make a real bomb like us real folks".

Its a disgusting device used unconciously by the media that perpetuates the myth that the "other" exists, and that the "other" is different from us even in the way they cause death. Meaning killing them is somehow less disturbing to us.

"I might also add that the term IED has been used by British forces for decades due to our regular encounters with PIRA nastiness."

Did we? I never knew that, they always seemed to be referred to as car bombs, nail bombs, culvert bombs etc. Maybe it was internal to bomb disposal?

You learn something new every day.

The BBC just reported the Harrods bomb as a car bomb, same for Bishopsgate.

Words have power. Those who exercise power know that.

Well… words can have power, if the listeners/reader allow them to.

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?

Neither.
It's a primitive guided weapon.

The language evolves. The word "bomb" at one time referred to any man-made purposely explosive instrument. Nowadays it has a specific military meaning:

That's what's called jargon. The military likes having tight, specific definitions for training and procedure purposes, but one really shouldn't go to them for language questions. It basically comes down to the old "right way, wrong way, Army way" saw.

It also doesn't invalidate the existing, broader definition. Just because it might be an I.E.D or an explosive device doesn't mean that it isn't also a bomb. For example, a Ford Ranger is also a truck. A truck is also an automobile. An automobile is also a vehicle.
-Kle.

Martin Rapier wrote:

"I might also add that the term IED has been used by British forces for decades due to our regular encounters with PIRA nastiness."

Did we? I never knew that, they always seemed to be referred to as car bombs, nail bombs, culvert bombs etc. Maybe it was internal to bomb disposal?

It was certainly used, but I think of it as pretty much an NI thing. The first time I heard the term, in the late 70s, was from an Irish girlfriend.

However, I think the idea that EOD people don't use the word "bomb" is pretty silly. Many years ago I had the great pleasure of meeting the late Colonel George Styles, GC, when he came to give the prizes on Founder's Day at my school. I am delighted to report that on their tour of the school's activities, his party arrived at the wargames club display half an hour late, and, despite the deputy head's best attempts to get them to gee up, left a whole hour late. When George Styles wrote a book of his experiences, he didn't call it "IEDs have no pity", he called it "bombs have no pity". Well worth a read if you find a copy.

All the best,

John.

"The first time I heard the term, in the late 70s, was from an Irish girlfriend."

Don't you mean IUD???

Meh.

If you honestly feel the term "improvised" is used to denigrate the enemy, you have no appreciation for the resourcefulness he exhibits in constructing his IEDs/bombs/'splodey things.

archstanton73 wrote:

"The first time I heard the term, in the late 70s, was from an Irish girlfriend."

Don't you mean IUD???

No.

Irish Catholic girlfriend.

All the best,

John.

See also military and government love of acronyms.

See also George Carlin's observation on the progression from "shell shock" through "battle fatigue" to "post truamatic stress disorder."

"The first time I heard the term, in the late 70s, was from an Irish girlfriend."

Don't you mean IUD???

No.

Irish Catholic girlfriend.

All the best,

John.

Errr yes..maybe not then!!!!

The most accurate name for an "IED" would be:

"An explosive device that has absolutely no military value, but whose victims will be used by the News Media and so-called 'Anti-War' activists to justify cutting and running from yet another war, thereby abandoning the civilian population to a continued barbaric medieval existence, and ensuring that Terrorists, Fanatics, and Despots everywhere will continue to not only prey on their own populations, not only blackmail 'civilized' countries, not only threaten world stability both economically and politically, but who will also look for any military or political weakness among their neighbors in an ever widening circle and actively seek to exploit it."

Welcome to the 21st century. You helped make it.

And let's not pretend Terrorists are particularly sophisticated or intelligent. Any average 15-year-old could make an IED – and frequently do. Terrorists are only successful because we do everything in our power to help them be. It's like feeding a rabid dog and then wondering why it keeps biting you.

"And let's not pretend Terrorists are particularly sophisticated or intelligent. Any average 15-year-old could make an IED – and frequently do. Terrorists are only successful because we do everything in our power to help them be. It's like feeding a rabid dog and then wondering why it keeps biting you."

Well the second you underestimate your enemy then you will start to lose…
Essentially with terrorists they only need to get lucky once--We need to get lucky every time..