On foot suicide bomber or parked car bomb - what would you find more terrifying?

Through my extensive studying of the Iraq War, particulary the current phase of it, I have been fascinated by the tactics used for the last few years by the opposition. It seems that these two methods, as well as the combination method of the driven suicide car bomb, of terrorism have accounted for most of the violent deaths in Iraq since 2009.

The basic premise of both forms of weapons is simple: covertly delivering explosives and detonating them to cause as much destruction as possible. While the shrapnel effect of foot suicide bombers are most deadly in targeting large gatherings, a single person, or other lightly defended targets, car bombs, depending on their size, have been known to devastate entire city blocks, and in some cases, towns. The deadliest single day terrorist incident in the war, and perhaps one of the worst of all time, involved 4 suicide car bombers in the Iraqi Kurdish villages ofQahtaniyaand Jazeera, and killed nearly 800 people.

All Iraq War matters aside, and all political and religious implications of the matters as well, what form of terrorism would you fear more? A car bomb that can destroy outright everything in its path, and for that matter, everything in your life? Or a smaller yield on foot suicide bomber who could be any stranger and make you think twice about going anywhere it is particularly crowded?

I think they are both terrifically awful and deadly in their own ways, but depending on where and how you live, you might beg to differ.

probably car bombs. After all, there are 3 times as many cars on the planet as there are people. statistically speaking, you are more likely to encounter a car bomb than someone with C4 strapped to their chests.

probably car bombs. After all, there are 3 times as many cars on the planet as there are people. statistically speaking, you are more likely to encounter a car bomb than someone with C4 strapped to their chests.

Neo-ganon

But what about technical and economical differences? I'm not claiming I know much about this end, but from everything I've seen and read, it takes a great deal more technical expertise and money (even if it is only a few thousand), as well as time, to assemble a functional car bomb than to assemble a bomb on a living person. That seems logical, given some crude car bomb attempts in other countries in recent years, such as the Times Square car bomb.

that is true, however (with proper mechanical knowledge) one can rig a gas tank to explode. Anyone can shove a lighter into a gas tank in a busy city street.

that is true, however (with proper mechanical knowledge) one can rig a gas tank to explode. Anyone can shove a lighter into a gas tank in a busy city street.

Neo-ganon

I'm wondering how common that is for a car bomb. What you described seems more like a roadside bomb or an AED (attached explosive device). I know fuel is often used as an explosive material, but such matters seem rarely known (and even more rarely reported).

How explosive is a gas tank on its own anyway? I'm not just talking about small car bombs. I'm talking about the kind that can literally devastate blocks of buildings and kill hundreds of people. Something like a car or truck crammed with anywhere from 1,000 to 60,000 LB of material.

well you could modify a car a bit based on what you put inside the car. Example, the oklahoma city bomber used fertilizer and gasoline. All someone would have to do is put bags of fertilizer and a can of gasoline in the back of his car, park it outside a public place, light the car tank up and run.

What difference does this make ?? but ultimatley I would rather a man on foot bomber, at least the world will get rid of one terrorist.

I'd find a human bomb to be more of a threat, because car bombs hit the outside of a building; a human bomb blows up people on the inside. I think the death tolls would be higher as a result.JustPlainLucas

[QUOTE="JustPlainLucas"]I'd find a human bomb to be more of a threat, because car bombs hit the outside of a building; a human bomb blows up people on the inside. I think the death tolls would be higher as a result.omho88

parked car bomb

What difference does this make ?? but ultimatley I would rather a man on foot bomber, at least the world will get rid of one terrorist.

omho88

Well, for one, part of what makes a suicide bomber so dangerous is the fact that they can abort their mission at any time, but then return when circumstances are more favorable (not to mention the fact that they can move). A parked car bomb on the other hand can be diffused by EOD or at least result in the evacuation of the area should anyone discover a car abandoned under suspicious circumstances (this was partially the reason the Time Square bomb was discovered and diffused).

Another thing is the fact that structures can be designed to keep cars some distances from them, or at least stymie their consequences when they do detonate. This is primarily the reason why you'll find Baghdad to be a maze of blast walls and jersey barriers. An on foot suicide bomber on the other hand can quite realistically penetrate areas that can be considered otherwise "safe", such as indoor areas or buildings or structures otherwise well defended from car bombs. This often happens to Iraqi army and police recruits at military bases and has accounted for two of the deadliest bombings of 2010 and of this year.

The destructive capacity of the car bomb is not to be underestimated however. Anyone whose seen this seen detonate can testify to their destructiveness in the right quantity of explosives. On foot suicide bombers on the other hand carry only a small amount of explosives, and like I said, the primary cause of death from them is shrapnel. I've rarely read about suicide bombers on foot completely leveling buildings.

So to me, it does make a difference.

Definitely a car, because you could pack more explosives into it. Plus, I think the shrapnel from a vehicle would be pretty devestating. Terrorists are such p***ys though. Killing innocent people for no reason.

Both are pretty bad.

What I want to know..What can we do to stop this hate?SOmething is driving these people to go off the deep end so much they are willing to die

Not sympathising with them at all but things need to change.

Well, a car bomb is limited to where the car is able to drive or stand. A human bomber can go anywhere pretty much. killerfist

Im fairly certain if a person is messed up enough in his head to blow himself up, he wouldn't care alot for driving on pedestrian streets with a car full of explosives.

On topic, i'd most definitely be more afraid of a car bomb than a regular suicide bomber, primarily because you can fit a heck of a lot more explosives inside a car than on a person before becoming suspicious.

In regard to Neo-ganon and TC's discussion: It is argueably even easier assembling a car bomb than a suicide bomb considering you won't have to take as much consideration to hiding circuitboards or explosives. In fact, the real challenge would be making the bomb complicated to diffuse, not constructing the detonator or getting hold of the explosives.

[QUOTE="omho88"]

What difference does this make ?? but ultimatley I would rather a man on foot bomber, at least the world will get rid of one terrorist.

Well, for one, part of what makes a suicide bomber so dangerous is the fact that they can abort their mission at any time, but then return when circumstances are more favorable (not to mention the fact that they can move). A parked car bomb on the other hand can be diffused by EOD or at least result in the evacuation of the area should anyone discover a car abandoned under suspicious circumstances (this was partially the reason the Time Square bomb was discovered and diffused).

Another thing is the fact that structures can be designed to keep cars some distances from them, or at least stymie their consequences when they do detonate. This is primarily the reason why you'll find Baghdad to be a maze of blast walls and jersey barriers. An on foot suicide bomber on the other hand can quite realistically penetrate areas that can be considered otherwise "safe", such as indoor areas or buildings or structures otherwise well defended from car bombs. This often happens to Iraqi army and police recruits at military bases and has accounted for two of the deadliest bombings of 2010 and of this year.

The destructive capacity of the car bomb is not to be underestimated however. Anyone whose seen this seen detonate can testify to their destructiveness in the right quantity of explosives. On foot suicide bombers on the other hand carry only a small amount of explosives, and like I said, the primary cause of death from them is shrapnel. I've rarely read about suicide bombers on foot completely leveling buildings.

So to me, it does make a difference.

[QUOTE="killerfist"]Well, a car bomb is limited to where the car is able to drive or stand. A human bomber can go anywhere pretty much. DoomZaW

Suicide bombers can go anywhere and kill way more than car bombs. For example the suicide bomber at the Moscow Airport recently. Try and get a car in there.

[QUOTE="Neo-ganon"]

that is true, however (with proper mechanical knowledge) one can rig a gas tank to explode. Anyone can shove a lighter into a gas tank in a busy city street.

jetpower3

I'm wondering how common that is for a car bomb. What you described seems more like a roadside bomb or an AED (attached explosive device). I know fuel is often used as an explosive material, but such matters seem rarely known (and even more rarely reported).

How explosive is a gas tank on its own anyway? I'm not just talking about small car bombs. I'm talking about the kind that can literally devastate blocks of buildings and kill hundreds of people. Something like a car or truck crammed with anywhere from 1,000 to 60,000 LB of material.

While a gallon of gasoline has about 300 times the energy of one stick of dynamite, there are factors that work against it for bomb use. What do you think make those big explosions in movies? Gas bombs. Dynamite on the other hand is more damaging as it is concussive in nature. It expends it's energy up all at once unlike gasoline.

Oklahoma was diesel and ammonium nitrate, not gasoline.

[QUOTE="DoomZaW"]

[QUOTE="killerfist"]Well, a car bomb is limited to where the car is able to drive or stand. A human bomber can go anywhere pretty much. killerfist

True, but again, a single person can only carry so much explosive and shrapnel without looking suspicious, how much, maybe 20 pounds at best? If he is inside a building, people in other rooms (of course depending on the construction) can still be in relative safety. But you can fit a heck of alot more explosives inside a car, making a significantly more powerfull explosion, with a hell of a lot more shrapnel from the car itself. If a wackjob drives a carful of explosives into the wall of a building and detonates it, he won't just take a couple of rooms, he will bring down the entire building block.