Quote Originally Posted by mhanson View Post
First off, thanks for all the comments! The more opinions I hear, the better I can make my paper.

I appreciate your taking the time to wade through my paper and make comments. I'd be interested in hearing any more thoughts that you have.

Matt Hanson
Hey Matt !
First and foremost welcome to the SWC. I look forward to more posts from you. If you do intend to stick around, please introduce yourself to the other members here.

Although I got the general thrust of your paper (Jamming Equipment), I felt it went too “economic” for my overall EOD interests. Granted, you’re studying economics and I understood that before reading your paper. You put quite a bit of information together, and perhaps had you used some of your think tank’s unclassified info and stats, you’d end up with a real first class product. What did your colleagues think of the paper ?

I’m not so sure we ‘missed’ or ‘didn’t look at’ the benefits and effects of jamming equipment. My personal view is perhaps our methods are simply not as publicized (for obvious reasons) as our other operational tactics and equipment utilization. Our EOD teams have been using various jamming equipment since early 1997. What we don’t have a good handle on is just how effective those devices are (we employ them as a matter of routine, and in some cases unintentionally employ them). I fully agree with your assessment, but overall see this subject in a different vein.

While I also agree with your conclusion (the use of jamming equipment surprised and stymied the insurgents activities), I’m not sure how you came up with 1,504 less attacks. There’s certainly anecdotal evidence to cover several instances where an IED was found and rendered safe (later forensics determined the IED was not merely defective, but still fully functional).

Regards, Stan