Talk:Dense inert metal explosive

Dispute over version

I have restored the article to its previous version because the version by user:NeilGibson is misleading, POV and does not contain as much information. I believe it is misleading because it states that DIME weapons are designed to reduce civilian casualties and attempts to give the impression that DIME weapons are safer for civilians than conventional weapons currently in use.

One example of misleading information is "Due to this and the lower HE content, blasts effects at distance are measurably reduced in comparison to standard explosive filling, lowering the potential collateral damage."

This ignores the fact that the carbon fibre casing is lighter than metal casing and so allows MORE high explosive to be included in the weapon, and that in an urban area where it is stated that DIME weapons are intended for use the density of people is high so it is probable that there will be civilians within the area of increased lethality, resulting in more civilian casualties, with a greater chance of death or being crippled.

This is just one bit that misleads, there are multiple statements which claim the weapon is designed to be safer for civilians when in fact it is designed to kill people more reliably.

The only bits that add to what is currently in the article are "It is believed that the SDB spin-off, the ‘Focused Lethality Munition’ (FLM) will use both of these technologies.", and "There are at least two US patents (3528864 and 5910638) covering the subject. The first was filed in 1970, (1st submitted in 1965) and the second in 1999 (1st submitted in 1997)" This last bit is why I have removed new from the first paragraph. If the ratio of 40 times the charge diameter for the point where the shock wave overtakes the partials of HMTA then this should also be in the article, but it should be referenced. I do not however believe that the partials would simple drop to the ground as they lost momentum, fine partials tend to float and drift in the air, and are easily disturbed when they do settle, this would increase the probability of them being inhaled, potentially causing cancer, or other more immediate problems as the partials are most likely highly toxic, most heavy metals are.

Some Sort Of Anarchist Nutter 21:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Some Sort Of Anarchist Nutter,

DIME explosives are, like most military explosives, designed to main and kill people.

DIME explosives have improved lethality at close range, but lessened at extended distances. I did not dispute, nor do I state the opposite in my version of the text. Weight for weight the HE content of a DIME explosive filled munition is less than one filled with a conventional HE. Also volume for volume the HE content is lower. So I’m sorry to say in both counts you are incorrect, the blast effects at distance will be lessened as a lower content of energetic material is used. Reading the patents would have brought this plainly to light!

When DIME explosives combined with a non-fragment producing case, the case fragments, which are the main lethality method of most weapons, are all but eradicated. The loss of fragments will in itself reduce potential casualties.

Your comment about people contained within the lethal radius is also flawed. The lethal radius for a DIME based non-fragmenting warhead is smaller than a standard fragmenting warhead with conventional HE fill (many times so), how less people can be affected if the area of effect is larger for a standard warhead is gobbledy-gook?

The weapon is designed to kill, but kill within a specific reduced radius. Hence outside the radius people are not so likely to be casualties.

The ratio of 40 times was taken from the Army Airforce Laboratory website, use this link. I quite agree that the version of the article I had written should have stated that the particles will more than likely be airborne after detonation, although some will have struck the ground or various other surrounding obstacles.

I found the article obsessed with the potential controversy of the cancer causing effects of the WHA alloys. WHA is the common term used for tungsten heavy alloys in the defence industry and weapon science fields by the way. If I remember rightly the paper on the subject attributes the potential cause of cancer to the binding agents, cobalt and nickel, or the potential interaction between the agents and the tungsten. The tests undertaken rather strangely did not use tungsten or cobalt alone, only WHA alloys (low and high dose), tantalum and nickel, which personally seem rather weird to me? Also in the graphs showing survival times, the nickel and low dose WHA are remarkably close, so is it really the tungsten causing the problem? Due to this all references should state, potential carcinogenic effects. The paper is more applicable to the potential carcinogenic effects of WHA fragments produced by armour piercing rounds and WHA preformed fragments used in some missile and munition warheads.

One big final note is that documentation on the explosive type DIME and the munitions using a DIME fill, use tungsten and not tungsten based alloy. Without information on the carcinogenic properties of tungsten, there is no basis in your argument or comments.

NeilGibson 15:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to be largely based on speculation and questionable sources- Palestinian sources have also alleged at various times, but never documented, the use of "unknown" chemical weapons by the Israelis- a claim debunked by at least one investigation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDwqFMIPhbs

It is also questionable as to whether the dense particles of heavy metals will remain airborn- this seems completely speculative. I think the article needs a good unbiased review. Mje 19:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want an unbiased view, revert the file to the version by NeilGibson. Far more informative as well.