Talk:Improvised explosive device

message: I tried making a couple edits, but it doesn't stay, and I don't know why. So, I apologize and sincerely thank whomever takes on the task of implementing (or providing feedback that they should not be implemented)these suggestions. 
Now, from reading the article, it seems to me that much of it was written by US Servicemembers with varying levels of expertise. But, I found a few problems- 
:1) This sentence "An IED is a bomb fabricated in an improvised manner incorporating destructive, lethal, noxious, pyrotechnic, or incendiary chemicals and designed to destroy or incapacitate personnel or vehicles," should be changed to this "An IED is 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." (Taken from pg 4-1 here: https://www.dtra.mil/Portals/61/Documents/Missions/NATO%20AJP-3.15(A)%20ALLIED%20C-IED%20MAR%2011.pdf?ver=2017-03-10-134619-480) Reason being, the statement in the article calls IEDs a "bomb". This is not accurate as bombs are dropped aerial munitions lacking any sort of propulsion. So, it is inaccurate to call an IED a bomb because some IEDs have propulsion systems, and very few are aerial munitions. 
:2) A reference for this sentence, "IEDs may incorporate military or commercially sourced explosives, and often combine both types, or they may otherwise be made with homemade explosives (HME)." Can be found at the same above reference, in the definition that specifies munitions may be mixed (https://www.dtra.mil/Portals/61/Documents/Missions/NATO%20AJP-3.15(A)%20ALLIED%20C-IED%20MAR%2011.pdf?ver=2017-03-10-134619-480)
:3) I think it's a little ridiculous to require a citation for this sentence, "An HME lab refers to a Homemade Explosive Lab, or the physical location where the devices are crafted." Technically, it could be called a "facility", "lab", "complex", "factory" and others, this phrasing is unimportant. Regardless, in this document you will find many references to an "HME lab", (https://www.ftig.ng.mil/Portals/39/Documents/Regulations%20and%20Documents/FTIG%20REG%20350-2%20-%2001%20MAY%202018.pdf?ver=2019-05-24-131451-890)
:4) A reference for this sentence, "An IED has five components: a switch (activator), an initiator (fuse), container (body), charge (explosive), and a power source (battery)." can be found here on pg h-9, figure h-4 (https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp3_42.pdf)
:5) This sentence, "An IED designed for use against armoured targets such as personnel carriers or tanks will be designed for armour penetration, by using a shaped charge that creates an explosively formed penetrator." is all wrong. First, it is very common (indeed in Afghanistan it is much more common) for IEDs targeting "armoured" targets to simply use a more conventional IED with a LOT of explosives. Next, iit says that a shaped charge creates an explosively formed penetrator. This is wrong as shaped charges, which use the Munroe effect, are not the same as EFPs, which use the Misznay-Schardin effect. It drives me crazy that EFPs are listed under the "Shaped Charge" wikipedia, but they are NOT the same. The fact that this statement says they "will be designed... by using a shaped charge... etc." implies that in all cases threat groups used "shaped charge EFPs" and this is not true. This sentence should be removed. 
:6) A reference for this sentence, "IEDs are extremely diverse in design and may contain many types of initiators, detonators, penetrators, and explosive loads." can be found in US Army Field Manual FM 3-34.210 from 2007 (there are probably newer versions, but I am sure they will have the same sentence in the same place) on page 7-8 where it states the following, "IEDs can be initiated in many different ways and are only limited by the imagination and sophistication of the enemy using them." Just searching the word "imagination" will bring up another sentence verifying the complexity of these devices. If specific examples of IED diversity are needed, the reader can simply continue reading, where they will find the multitude of various combinations. 
:7) For this sentence, "Antipersonnel IEDs typically also contain fragmentation-generating objects such as nails, ball bearings or even small rocks to cause wounds at greater distances than blast pressure alone could." I am not sure what needs a reference, so I will supply one for both claims. As for the first claim, that AP IEDs contain shrapnel, the following sentence, "Additional materials such as nails, ball bearings, and glass are commonly added to increase the number and severity of injuries." can be found here (https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/pdf/10.1148/rg.2016150114) but really, verifying that IEDs contain shrapnel should be an incredibly easy task. As for the second claim that fragmentation can travel further than blast pressure, this is a calculator by NATO that will determine safe distances for fragmenting vs. bare munitions (https://www.un.org/disarmament/un-saferguard/explosion-danger-area/). Note, the calculator may not be ideal evidence, but it's the best I could find in a short time. 
:8) This sentence "In the conflicts of the 21st century, anti-personnel improvised explosive devices (IED) have partially replaced conventional or military landmines as the source of injury to dismounted (pedestrian) soldiers and civilians." implies IEDs and landmines are "THE [only] source of injury to dismounted... etc." This is obviously not the case, as soldiers face the threat of small arms fire, indirect fire, RPGs, etc. This sentence could be removed entirely, or edited to reflect that IEDs are now a common source of dismounted casualties. When that edit is made, I will furnish a reference. 
:9) A reference for this sentence, "Some groups, however, have been known to produce sophisticated devices constructed with components scavenged from conventional munitions and standard consumer electronics components, such as mobile phones, consumer-grade two-way radios, washing machine timers, pagers, or garage door openers." contains this sentence, "Radio- or remote-control devices are another common form of COIED. Car alarms, garage door openers, remote control toys, mobile telephones, and two-way radios have been adapted to this purpose." and this sentence, "The next level of sophistication involves the use of an analogue clock or kitchen timer. A metal contact is attached to a clock hand or a timer’s rotating mechanism, so that it will eventually reach another contact, thus completing a circuit and activating the device." and can be found here (http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2013/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2013-Chapter-10-EN.pdf). I believe this should be sufficient. 
:10) A reference for this sentence, " Chlorine liquid has been added to IEDs in Iraq, producing clouds of chlorine gas." can be found here (https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/world/middleeast/21cnd-baghdad.html) and here (https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/17/world/middleeast/17cnd-iraq.html).
:11) This phrase, "They [VBIED] are typically employed by insurgents in particular, ISIS..." is misleading. I think "insurgents" should be replaced with "terrorists," as VBIEDs, and particularly suicide VBIEDs, are a terrorist tactic. Yes, many insurgents are terrorists, but not all terrorists are insurgents, and the VBIEDs are used exclusively in terrorism campaigns. They incorporate indiscriminate killing with the intent to terrorize the populace. Furthermore, the part, "in particular, ISIS" should also be removed. Maybe somewhere in the article it could state that ISIS is known to have used the VBIED, but to say they use it "in particular" makes it seem like other organizations are less likely to use the tactic. VBIEDs are used by dozens of threat groups throughout the world, rather regularly. ISIS does not hold a monopoly. 
:12) Recommend removing this sentence, "Of increasing popularity among insurgent forces in Iraq, is the house-borne IED, or HBIED from the common military practice of clearing houses; insurgents rig an entire house to detonate and collapse shortly after a clearing squad has entered." This sentence is just stupid. First, "borne" means "carried or transported by." A house can neither carry, nor transport anything. While I'm sure some infantry who ran into IED'ed structures thought he was being clever, but this is ridiculous. 
:13) I recommend changing the title of the section, "By Warhead" to "Types of IEDS." I say this because the "warhead" implies there is a "head", which means there is a direction of travel to the munition. I have only ever heard of "warhead" being used to describe the explosive element of some sort of projected munition. The DOD definition does not actually specify it must be a projected munition, but all three of the examples provided in the definition are projected munitions. If this change is made, I recommend adding a statement to the section to the effect "IEDs are constantly evolving, and new forms of the device are being conceived of frequently. As such, it may be impossible to ensure this list is fully up-to-date."
:14) There is a problem with this sentence, "These definitions address the Nuclear and Explosive in CBRNe."  The issue is the acronym CBRNe. It should be noted that the "E" (always capitalized in military literature) stands for "high-yield" explosive. What this means is unclear, but I have always thought it to mean an as yet undiscovered explosive material with similar blast effects to nukes, but this is a personal belief. I recommend using the acronym CBRN. The reason being this acronym is used to denote specific types of events that require special assistance from the Chemical Corps. Whether we use the vague "high-yield explosive" or the regular old "explosive" it does not require special assistance from the Chemical Corps, as such the "E" should be removed.
:15) There are a few problems with this section, "That leaves chemical, biological and radiological undefined. Four definitions have been created to build on the structure of the JCS definition. Terms have been created to standardize the language of first responders and members of the military and to correlate the operational picture." The first, most glaring issue here is that in the same reference mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph includes a definition for a Radiological Dispersion Device, and a Chemical Dispersion Device, only leaving "Biological" undefined. Second, the fourth proposed definition, "Improvised Incendiary Device" is already covered by the definition of the IED, "An IED is a device placed or fabricated in an improvised manner incorporating destructive, lethal, noxious, PYROTECHNIC OR INCENDIARY chemicals..." The last problem I have is that this gives the impression that the proposed definitions in the given reference have been accepted by the explosives community at large, and this is far from the case. I recommend removing this whole section. It serves no purpose. IED was defined early on, and the article covers possible types of IEDs that include chemical, biological, nuclear (fission or fusion takes place), or radiological (disperses radioactive material, but no fission or fusion occurs). 
:16) Recommend adding "Conventional" to the "Explosive" section under "By Warhead." The reason being that ALL IEDs are explosive. This just specifies what type of explosive. 
:17) The following sentence, "IEDs have been deployed in the form of explosively formed projectiles (EFP), a special type of shaped charge that is effective at long standoffs from the target (50 meters or more)..." is inaccurate. AGAIN, an EFP is NOT a special type of shaped charge. People only believe this because the Wikipedia page on shaped charges is wrong. Shaped charges ALWAYS use the Munroe effect, which results in a a jet of molten metal being projected; whereas, EFPs ALWAYS use the Miznay-Schardin effect, which does NOT result in a jet, and only produces a "slug"-type object being projected. 
:18) The following is misleading, "however they are not accurate at long distances. This is because of how they are produced." Saying their inaccuracy is a result of how they are "produced" makes it sound like manufacturing practices is the cause of their inaccuracies. However, this is not the case. I recommend changing this part to say, "however, the types of EFP IEDs, predominately manufactured and distributed by Iran that are found in the Middle-East are not typically accurate at long distances (beyond 50 meters). This results from how the slug is formed via the Misnay-Schardin effect." I specify we are talking about the EFPs found in the Middle-East because some EFPs can be accurate at much greater distances. For example, there are some anti-helicopter landmines that use EFPs that will be launched at the helicopter when it comes within 200 meters. And I KNOW someone will have an issue with the "predominately... Iran" part, SOLELY based on the fact that Iran denies it (yeah, no shit they do), but the evidence is undeniable. Many of the EFPs we found in Iraq had Iranian factory markers and targeting instructions IN FARSI. Beyond that, there is classified evidence that is WAY more convincing, but I can't go into that. And, while some may point to the handful of "EFP factories" found in Iraq as proof that Iran is innocent, this proves nothing. It was OBVIOUS in 2007 that there were AT LEAST 2 (there were in fact more) different originators of AT LEAST 2 (again, there were more) different types of EFPs. It was always immediately apparent which ones came from Iran manufacturing plants, and which ones came from locals trying to duplicate Iran's EFPs. We could even tell from the post-blast analysis whether or not it was an Iranian or local EFP. Local EFPs tried different metals for the plate, which often ended in a plate that would fracture into several pieces, forming more of a fragmentation effect. Also, with larger EFPs, the locals ALWAYS packed too much explosive in the EFP, again resulting in a fragmentation vs. EFP effect (the reason for this is because increasing the diameter of the plate, decreases the needed depth of explosives). Furthermore, locals would sometimes use a simple, flat plate (known as a platter charge), that would often slam into the side of a vehicle causing no real damage. And the biggest giveaway as to whether the EFP was Iranian or local was the IRANINAN FACTORY MARKINGS AND TARGETING INSTRUCTIONS IN FARSI. If it makes you feel better, add a caveat that states "Iran denies these accusations." BECAUSE OF COURSE THEY DO. According to them, they also don't supply the Taliban and Hezbollah. But EVERYONE KNOWS THIS IS HORSE SHIT.   
:19) The following is not entirely accurate: "The large 'slug' projected from the explosion has no stabilization because it has no tail fins and it does not spin like a bullet from a rifle. Without this stabilization the trajectory can not be accurately determined beyond 50 meters." I would again recommend adding "In the case of the Iranian EFPs found throughout the Middle-East, the large 'slug'..." because EFPs can be made to form tail fins that stabilize the projectile for much greater distances, as explained here (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214914714000348).
:20) Again, this is not correct, "The force of the shaped charge turns the disc into a high velocity slug, capable of penetrating the armor of most vehicles in Iraq." Saying the "shaped charge" does anything is misleading. Technically, the explosive is FORMED around the liner, there is no "shaped charge", which has a specific meaning in technical usage. Also, it may be helpful to add some things to this snetence. I recommend changing it to state, "The force of the explosive shockwaves turn the liner into a slug traveling at hypersonic speeds (in excess of mach 5), which causes the EFP to interact with armor hydrodynamically, punching through any type of armor found in Iraq and/or Afghanistan." The reference for the mach 5 is (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18200915/), and for the hydrodynamically (https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-319-01905-5_49-1.pdf), it says, "Penetration of EFPs is often described by a hydrodynamic penetration equation..." on page 42. NOW, I WILL NOTE- The pubmed reference classifies EFPs as a form of shape-charge. Because this is now the third time I have seen this in an academic paper, I will consider changing my stance on the EFP thing; however, note that all other references given differentiate between the two as two different types of charge. But, I am open to suggestions. 
:21) The section "Directionally Focused Charges" should be altered to  specify one type of "Directionally Focused Charge" (I'll use DFC for short). To my knowledge, IEDs are not normally classified DFC. I admit, I have heard the term on occasion, and I'm sure I could find it in one of my manuals, but this is not a helpful classification. The reason for that is because EFPs, shaped charges, directionally-focused fragmentation charges, as well as explosives that are merely tamped a certain way could ALL fall under this broad categorization, and since this includes the charges designed for antiarmor, antipersonnel, and antihelicopter (FOB Loyalty, Baghdad, Iraq, saw a 55-gallon drum filled with explosives with thousands of ball bearings on top fired at helicopters attempting to land at our HLZ; technically a DFFC, it would also fall under DFC), and charges in this categorization can involve only conventional explosives, or include Misnay-Schardin plates, or Munroe plates, or extra shrapnel, or even possibly rockets, this categorization is entirely unhelpful and should be deleted.
::21a) I recommend one section for "Platter Charges" which states "A platter charge is a less common antiarmor IED in which an in-tact plate is propelled at the target." Honestly, there is a pretty good chance that these IEDs were never intentional. It was most likely some uneducated IED maker trying to replicate an EFP, not knowing this was about a billion times less effective. 
::21b) I recommend another section be added for "Directionally-Focused Fragmentation Charges (DFFC)". It should state "Also called 'improvised claymores' they are defined as "An improvised weapon, military or homemade, designed to explosively propel a pattern of ball bearings or other fragmentation in an aimed direction." (https://unmas.org/sites/default/files/unmas_ied_lexicon_0.pdf)
:22) The section titled "Chemical" should be changed to "Chemical Dispersion Device," to reflect the proper terminology. (https://ssem.eku.edu/sites/ssem.eku.edu/files/files/HAHN%20-%20ICDD%20091311.pdf), aslo, this reference can be used for the text under "Chemical."
:23) A reference for the following, "A device incorporating biological materials designed to result in the dispersal of vector borne biological material for the purpose of creating a primary patho-physiological toxic effect (morbidity and mortality), or secondary psychological effect (causing fear and behavior modification) on a larger population. Such devices are fabricated in a completely improvised manner." can be found here (https://unmas.org/sites/default/files/unmas_ied_lexicon_0.pdf) under "Enhancements."
:24) I recommend the entire section "Incendiary" be removed, because as established, conventional IEDs can be incendiary. 
:25) I recommend changing "Radiological" to "Radiological Dispersion Device," to reflect the correct terminology. Further, I think "speculative" here has a political connotation. A lot of people believe the threat of a dirty bomb is propped up by the US government to keep the public scared, and have them go along with whatever wars they are selling. However, this paper should put that theory to rest (https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/al-qaeda-wmd-threat.pdf). It is unquestionable that that malign actors have sought, and continue to seek weapons of mass destruction, including a radiological dispersal device. If you are tagging every IED concept that has not been observed, then the Biological, surgically-implanted, and nuclear IEDs are all also speculative. And at one point, they were ALL speculative. So, it just seems like it doesn't belong. As for a reference (https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/emergencypreparedness/rdd_tech.html#:~:text=Radiological%20dispersal%20devices%20(RDD)%2C,such%20as%20multiple%20city%2Dblocks.). And, I also HIGHLY recommend specifying that fission/fusion do not occur in this device. 
:26) I recommend renaming "Nuclear" to "Improvised Nuclear Device." Likewise, I would like to see this section specifically explain that in this case fission/fusion DOES occur. Here is a reference for this section (https://www.remm.nlm.gov/nuclearexplosion.htm). Also, more specific information is in there that can be added. And, I would also like to see a source for the claim that the device would be "of most likely gun-type or implosion-type." I have no idea whether or not this is true, as nukes are way above my pay grade, but I would like to see it verified.
:27) I recommend changing the name of "Cars" to "Vehicle Borne IED VBIED" as trucks, minivans, etc., are used regularly. Leaving it specific to cars is a little moronic. Here is a reference on VBIEDs (https://www.dni.gov/files/NCTC/documents/jcat/firstresponderstoolbox/VBIED-Preparedness-Recognition-Response-ONLINE-Version.pdf). And, if we change it to "VBIEDs" then I don't think we really need a reference to say they can carry thousands of pounds of explosives, do we? I mean, we know there are a multitude of vehicles which can carry several thousands of pounds of explosives, right? 
:28) As far as the WWII kamikaze boats (https://www.al.com/news/2019/03/kamikaze-boat-rarest-wwii-killing-machine-in-alabama.html). I would also like to see this section mention the repeated use remote-controlled IED boats by the Houthi rebels in Yemen (https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/idex/2017/02/19/new-houthi-weapon-emerges-a-drone-boat/).
:29) As for the monkeys and war pigs, that sentence is pulled directly from "HAZMAT Guide for First Responders" By Michael L. Madigan, but I can't see which page. 
:30) This is not correct, "Suicide bombing usually refers to an individual wearing explosives and detonating them in order to kill others including themselves, a technique pioneered by LTTE (Tamil Tigers)." on two accounts. First, suicide attacks can either involve a person wearing explosives, or it could be a person driving a bomb. In fact, originally, the latter was the case. Next, the Tamil Tigers did NOT pioneer the suicide IED (though the link provided does specify as much, it is just wrong). The Tamil Tigers' first SIED, which was a SVBIED, was in July 1987; whereas Hezbollah's first SIED attack, also a SVBIED was in October 1983. (https://aoav.org.uk/2013/a-short-history-of-suicide-bombings/) They did however, invent the SIED vest. And, I recommend adding some more info to represent the SVBIED part of suicide. 
:31) Because the "surgically-implanted IEDs" is so alarming, I think additions should be made to explain the extreme technical challenges needed to be overcome in their use. I.e., the difficulty of initiation, keeping the explosives from contacting and thus poisoning the body, the recovery from surgery, and hiding fresh scars and weird bulges from security screeners. It should also be mentioned that these IEDs have never been successfully used. And, please don't mention the Saudi prince assassination attempt. That was initially believed to be a body-cavity bomb, but most now believe it to have been an underwear bomb. After all, they estimated 4 kg of explosive. You try walking around with over 8 pounds of explosive in your ass and tell me if you don't walk differently.                  
:32) I am not sure, but I believe the Lob bombs, and the improvised mortars are the same thing. Both are actually projected rockets, and NOT projected projectiles, like mortars are. Someone needs to look into this more thoroughly. 
:33) As far as command-wire IEDs go, the CW is not ALWAYS an electric wire. Though much less frequent than electric switches, shock tube has been used in both theaters. 
:34) To the types of VOIED, I would add "acoustic, active infrared (AIR), passive infrared (PIR), collapsing circuit, crush wire, photo-electric, magnetic, anti-disturbance (tilt or vibration), plunger, pressure, pressure release, pressure and pressure release, pull, radar, RF detector, tension, tension release (https://unmas.org/sites/default/files/unmas_ied_lexicon_0.pdf). 
:35) The "Infrared" is all fuckered up and obviously written by someone who is being confused by what they are reading. But, I don't blame the reader, I blame the writers, because they have misunderstood. But, then there's always the possibility that I have misunderstood, and if that's the case you can correct me. But, I am going to have to dissect this whole section. First, I want to point out that this entire section is plagiarized verbatim from the book How to Survive a Terrorist Attack – Become Prepared for a Bomb Threat or  Active Shooter Assault, put out by Homeland Security and FEMA. I would like to know the ACTUAL authors, they seemed to have misunderstood some things. Anyways, it states-
::"The British accused Iran and Hezbollah of teaching Iraqi fighters to use infrared light beams to trigger IEDs. As the occupation forces became more sophisticated in interrupting radio signals around their convoys, the insurgents adapted their triggering methods.[42] In some cases, when a more advanced method was disrupted, the insurgents regressed to using uninterruptible means, such as hard wires from the IED to detonator; however, this method is much harder to effectively conceal. It later emerged however, that these "advanced" IEDs were actually old IRA technology. The infrared beam method was perfected by the IRA in the early '90s after it acquired the technology from a botched undercover British Army operation. Many of the IEDs being used against the invading coalition forces in Iraq were originally developed by the British Army who unintentionally passed the information on to the IRA.[43] The IRA taught their techniques to the Palestine Liberation Organisation and the knowledge spread to Iraq.[44]"
:Now, the first sentence is almost certainly confusing the part about using infrared beams to trigger IEDs, though there is the CHANCE they are correct, and this is simply new information to me; however, I doubt that, and I'll explain why. There are two types of infrared detecting systems- Active InfraRed (AIR), Passive InfraRed (PIR). Before we start, I should mention that infrared is really basically heat, and that will be important later. Active infrared works by emitting an infrared beam of light towards a sensor, which is then picked up by that sensor, and read as nothing between the emitter and the sensor. When something blocks the beam, the sensor fails to pick it up and it is read as something blocking the sensor. Now, this COULD be used by IEDs, but it wouldn't be very effective, because we would see the infrared beam with our NODs (Night Optical Devices, or Night Vision Goggles). This would be an immensely easy tactic to overcome. Also, there would be no need to shine a laser at it. The second type of IR detection system is PIR. PIR doesn't emit any light. All PIR does is watch the background environment. It has a camera that breaks up its field of view into hundreds (possibly thousands, I suppose, why not) of smaller individual fields of view (FOV), and it basically monitors the "temperature", which as I mentioned earlier, infrared light is heat (MOSTLY, look it up if you're interested). Each device is different, but the general way they are set up is if the temperature in any two (could be three, could be four, could be more) consecutive FOVs is raised [X] amount, then the sensor is activated. Now, if the IED sensor were PIR, again they would have no need to shine a laser at it. The reason for this is because, basically, every body gives off infrared radiation. Shining a laser at PIR defeats it's two primary strengths- standoff and targeting accuracy. You can be as far away from the IED as need be. In certain configurations, you don't even need line-of-sight. But, if you had to command detonate it, you would have to be closer for more accurate targeting; however, the PIR will activate when they're in range. A laser is not needed to trigger a PIR, because regular body heat will. And you may say, "Well, it's hot in Iraq/Afghanistan. How do we know the ambient temperature is not hotter than body/vehicle temp?" That doesn't matter, because reductions in temperature would have the same effect. And it's absurd to think that the body temperatures of all the soldiers and vehicles have the exact same ambient body temperature. 
: I think this idea that infrared laser beams were used to trigger IEDs comes from the very real fact that the IRA used photoelectric cells, which were triggered in a highly complex way, via visible light, which is touched on in [43], though not with infrared light. I am aware of IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan being initiated by photoelectric cells, but in all cases, the IEDs were initiated as soon as light was introduced. It seems the IRA programmed their devices to only be set off with a certain combo of strobes. And the IRA did use AIR in their devices. Also, I am highly skeptical of A LOT of the claims made by the supposed informant in [43] as well as a few other places I have read. These (it maybe THIS, it may be the same guy in all three places, certainly the "voice" seems similar throughout the writings) British officers seem to think because similar devices or tactics are used by a group, they must have learned it from the IRA. This is insulting towards the Afghans and the Iraqis. I'll give a few quick examples. The fact that the Iraqis or Afghans employ a smaller initial charge is used, then followed up by a larger secondary charge targeting first responders; because similarly-designed, crude pipe bombs were made (the design for which can be found on the internet); because car bombs or improvised mortars were used... etc. One more is that Iraq used a Cellphone-armed, PIR initiated, Command Wire backup IED the IRA MUST be involved. This is arrogance. The RC-armed, PIR-initiated, CW backup, was FULLY expected. You can see a natural progression. At the beginning, VOIED were used but they kept hitting wrong targets. Then they moved to CWIED, but they were too easy to spot because they were attached to the IED. So, then they got the RCIEDs and greatly increased their standoff. But electronic jammers started fucking up the program again. So, they got the RC-armed, PIR-initiated. But this STILL was not entirely reliable, so that had to start putting low man on the totem pole back attached to the device, because they were losing too many EFPs. Now, I don't doubt that SOME information was exchanged, probably with the IED expertise flowing from the IRA to some Islamic Extremist groups. However, what I strongly object to is this, "Many of the IEDs being used against the invading coalition forces in Iraq were originally developed by the British Army who unintentionally passed the information on to the IRA.[43]" This so matter-of-factly claims that the Brits are directly responsible for the IEDs that killed them. But this is ridiculous. These terror organizations have had FAR more experience with explosives through their experiences in the militaries/paramilitaries/militias of Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. 
: This whole section of "Infrared" is based on incredibly sketchy evidence. I repeat, I vote it gets removed. 
:36)  The entire section on "Counterefforts," hurts my very soul... you know, if I had a soul. But, as Combat Engineer, I don't. Oh, speaking of Combat Engineers, you know what's missing from "Counterefforts?" THE FUCKING ENGINEERS. What in unholy god-damned buttfuckery is this!? Now, I think a LOT about the "Counterefforts" section should change, but I'm going to reserve my improvements for what is there, and after taking a look at the "Counter IED" page, I may come back and make further recommendations for additions.
::36a) So, first, change the section from "Counterefforts" to "Counter-IED Efforts". This is simply the generally accepted term. 
::36b) For a reference for the first (intro) sentence under "Counterefforts" find US Joint Publication 3-42 page II-7.
::36c) Next, I think "Detection" and "Disarmament" should be two different sections as they are almost always conducted as two separate missions, often with separate personnel. Typically, Combat Engineers are the ones who actually do the detecting, and if they are lucky enough to have EOD embedded (which I was spoiled, I always did), EOD will sit cozy in the back of the convoy  drinking beer or smoking pot, or maybe gambling? I don't know what the hell they do back there, I just know they wake up after we find the IED. Then, they put a little charge on a robot that they then drive to the IED, and place. Then, they pull a little pull-ring up, and the device goes boom. That is ALL stuff a good portion of Engineers know how to do, but we tend to be a little reckless, so they put limitations on what we can and cannot BIP. We were li,ited to a single jug of HME (40 pounds), or a single landmine. We also couldn't BIP any daisey-changed IEDs, EFPs, or DFFCs. 
::36d) I'm going to ignore the self-indulgent, egotistical "Only the chosen ones may determine whether to BIP or exploit," nonsense that HAS to be written by an EOD tech... AND OH GOD DAMNIT. Almost this ENTIRE Wikipedia page (possibly all of it) has been taken verbatim from the STUPID fucking book "How to Survive a Terrorist Attack" that was coauthored by DHS and FEMA, and contains some obvious errors. I'm new to editing Wikipedia; is this allowed, to just plagiarize a book entirely? Anyways, I'll grind on (I'm worried about what I'll find on The Counter-IED Efforts Wiki). So, the next thing that needs to change is the abbreviating of Explosives Ordnance Disposal "IEDD". This is stupid. The acronym for Explosives Ordnance Disposal is EOD, I'm not sure how anyone can disagree with that. Beyond the obvious, as the section correctly points out, in order to render safe an IED, the EOD tech must be grounded in the basics of explosive hazards. And, someone can correct me on this, but I presume ALL EOD also deal with IEDs. 
::36e) Next, this sentence, "Beyond this, as the stakes increase and IEDs are emplaced not only to achieve the direct effect, but to deliberately target IEDD operators and cordon personnel, the IEDD operator needs to have a deep understanding of tactics to ensure they are neither setting up any of their team or the cordon troops for an attack, nor walking into one themselves." makes it sound like it is up to the EOD team leader to determine the tactics surrounding the IED incident. This was literally never once the case in my entire career (three separate route clearance deployments as a Combat Engineer). The closest the EOD tech got to control over the convoy was suggesting we move a vehicle, either because the explosive was bigger than we anticipated, or we were potentially in the path of the EFP, but even in these cases, we determined our positioning. Now, this is not to say that we told EOD what to do, but we had separate missions. We (the Combat Engineers) ran convoy operations, security (EOD sometimes didn't even have a gunner in their truck), any sort of situation encountered, our PL was in charge. However, we had EXCELLENT working relationships with our EOD. We worked fluidly as a team. We both knew what our missions were, and how they interacted, and we never stepped on each other's toes. We would operate the convoy, find the suspected device, set up a cordon with overlapping sectors of fire, "interrogate" the device (usually by abusing it with the mechanical arm of the buffalo), confirm the device, then we would hand things off to EOD by precisely describing the situation to them (we would explain what were seeing as far as the device, but also the situation in general, like security concerns). Then, EOD would take over. Based on what we told them, they made a plan of attack. Sometimes EOD would do everything from their truck, often they would dismount and get in the Buffalo, so they could get a closer look with their own eyes (as opposed to the robot's). We were always eager to help them complete their mission (they were more content to kick back until we found the IED), but their mission was narrowly defined, and they were enlisted, so our Lieutenant's orders took precedence. So, this whole section really needs to take a more realistic look at the Counter-IED mission. 
::36f) I'm going to ignore the whole choppiness and lack of flow of this section, and just focus on the more factual problems, like this sentence, "The supposed effectiveness of IED jamming systems, including vehicle- and personally-mounted systems, has caused IED technology to essentially regress to command-wire detonation methods.[45]" The stated reference makes no claim about a regression to CWIEDs due to the effectiveness of the jammers. I have been out of the Army for awhile, so this could be true, I don't know. 
::36g) Reference [46] is a domain for sale, so that should be deleted. And, a search of "Canadian Unmanned Systems Challenge" doesn't reveal an easy match for anything, so that sentence should be removed if no new reference can be produced. 
Holy shit! I'm done. Now I have to rewrite my intro, because it initially said, 
::"I am happy that there are not the usual introductions to the page with all the disclaimers stating that this is disputed, or that it doesn't meet this or that standard, etc. However, there are a lot of "Citation Needed" notifications, and I wanted to provide a note on that. The overwhelming majority of specific information is going to be contained in classified documents. However, in the coming weeks or months, I will try to find unclassified sources that can be cited."
Instead, I decided to take a few days and provide the citations. Thank you for your assistance fellow "Wikipedians?" "Wikipedites?" (nope way to close to pedo). Whatever. Thank you Wikipedia Community. 
CuriousLayman (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  36-ish Suggestions to improve this page in 2020 

message: I noticed an issue with this paragraph under Historical Use:
“According to a report by the Homeland Security Market Research in the US, the number of IEDs used in Afghanistan had increased by 400 percent since 2007 and the number of troops killed by them by 400 percent, and those wounded by 700 percent. It has been reported that IEDs are the number one cause of death among NATO troops in Afghanistan.[52]”
Firsly, it doesn’t give a date for when, since 2007, that increase was reported. When I looked at the link cited, it seemed like a sort of public blog. Unhelpful at best, but probably completely useless. If there are facts to back it up, it’s a good spot to put them, but the source cited seems quite unreliable. I didn’t want to simply delete it, but I’m not sure how to confirm the details given. It would be good to find a proper source and word the paragraph more descriptively. Samuel010898 (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear/dubious source 

message: No information regarding common designs or construction methods of improvised explosives was listed, this seems incomplete. 98.188.50.17 (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Construction? 

message: I served with 321 EOD in NI at the time 17 of my collegues were killed whilst attempting to deal with IED's over a short period of less than two years!
Hence - THE ONLY PREDICTABLE ELEMENT TO EVERY IED IS IT's TOTAL UNPREDICTABILITY! 2A02:1811:435:3900:7C8B:C26F:633E:78AA (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  IED Definition