This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dense inert metal explosive article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
NeilGibson is pretty much right from end to end. The weapon was designed to reduce collateral damage. Nonetheless, it remains a weapon to kill. The lack or reduction of fragments is the main reason for reduced lethality outside of the immediate vincinity where the munition is dropped, supposedly with a guidance system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.28.113.197 ( talk) 22:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The Hellfire missile has a 'metal augmented charge' variant. Is it the same thing as DIME? -- Htra0497 ( talk) 04:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
No, the metal in DIMEs does not take part in any chemical reaction (hence the inert), in metal augmented charges the metal, such as aluminum, adds extra energy to the detonation by reacting with oxygen in the atmosphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.171.3 ( talk) 21:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
It would be interesting to know why they use tungsten? Isn't steel cheaper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.40.79.66 ( talk) 14:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Small particles of steel would probably burn - big chunks of iron do not ignite but fine particles do and are used in pyrotechnics for the purpose of production of sparks. -- Georgius ( talk) 14:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
the israeli ministry of war has herself (as i understood it) acknowledged the use of DIME and white phosphorous stating they were not forbidden by international law. The concept of the explosives surprise me, apparently there are different new kinds of explosives in the testing run. basically i think the idea to hit people with ever smaller, ever faster, ever harder, ever more effective weapons consists a human rigths violation of her own accord. I won't easily forget it also, the israeli statement was the first time i ever saw the word DIME. 24.132.170.97 ( talk) 06:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the opposite argument is more logical. That a more effective weapon with less collateral damage is more humane. Killing someone with a pistol to the head, or spraying wildly from a machine gun is murder all the same... but the pistol is far less likely to kill bystanders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.152.208 ( talk) 13:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The article says that "several doctrs" suggest that Israel was using DIME weapons, but when I checked the sources I found that those "several doctors" was only one heavily-polemic Norwegian doctor, Dr. Mads Gilbert. -- 200.127.56.65 ( talk) 05:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, Dr. Mads Gilbert claims that it is possible that the weapon was used, not that it was. So far this part is pure speculation and does not belong in wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.68.134.105 ( talk) 08:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I hope that I am entering this correctly. I believe all who criticize Focused Lethality Munitions are trying to garner more sympathy for the people who perform population targeting on Israel using unguided missiles and expect no retaliation. I spent my entire adult career in the Defense Industry as a scientist/engineer and can easily see when someone posts both with no knowledge about the details and larger picture as well as focusing on unrelated topics. If it weren't for Israeli's use of this technology, they would have only the choice of using covert assassination teams (worse PR) or traditional munitions in which the radius of destruction is orders of magnitude greater which absolutely would involve people not-directly related to the targets who have been carefully selected to slow the attacks with the minimal number of casualties. If anyone is familiar with effects of blast and shrapnel at distances from the target and see photos of a single car with the roof peeled back and not only undamaged or mildly damaged buildings and stores on either side of the street but also essentially undamaged car hood and no shattered headlights. One I saw even showed a nearly intact dashboard peeled upwards with one or two sandals next to the destroyed windshield. This is technology which comes extremely close to a marksman's hit using HEIAP .50BMG projectiles. In other photos one can easily see incredible accuracy, to the extent of going through the neighbor's windows in an apartment building and only destroying the insurgent's room. Yes, lives are lost, but that is the nature of war and is far more humane than reducing the entire building and surrounding block.
I don't have the reference but I'm sure the quotes from interviews can easily be found. Even the people who live in Gaza who at the very least personally support the insurgents* have recently nicked the FLM as "Nice Bombs."
My apologies if I've not posted correctly or am off topic. I think that Mr. Herbert's answers and commentary are on topic, rational and trying to keep it a neutral description of the technology. I congratulate him on his meticulousness and knowledge of things I would not discuss.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacgirl2000 ( talk • contribs) 00:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
These devices are often called "dime bombs" on news reports. It took be awhile to find the article since I searched for dime. Perhaps it needs a redirect for the term dime bomb. 172.165.79.93 ( talk) 05:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dense inert metal explosive article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
NeilGibson is pretty much right from end to end. The weapon was designed to reduce collateral damage. Nonetheless, it remains a weapon to kill. The lack or reduction of fragments is the main reason for reduced lethality outside of the immediate vincinity where the munition is dropped, supposedly with a guidance system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.28.113.197 ( talk) 22:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The Hellfire missile has a 'metal augmented charge' variant. Is it the same thing as DIME? -- Htra0497 ( talk) 04:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
No, the metal in DIMEs does not take part in any chemical reaction (hence the inert), in metal augmented charges the metal, such as aluminum, adds extra energy to the detonation by reacting with oxygen in the atmosphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.171.3 ( talk) 21:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
It would be interesting to know why they use tungsten? Isn't steel cheaper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.40.79.66 ( talk) 14:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Small particles of steel would probably burn - big chunks of iron do not ignite but fine particles do and are used in pyrotechnics for the purpose of production of sparks. -- Georgius ( talk) 14:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
the israeli ministry of war has herself (as i understood it) acknowledged the use of DIME and white phosphorous stating they were not forbidden by international law. The concept of the explosives surprise me, apparently there are different new kinds of explosives in the testing run. basically i think the idea to hit people with ever smaller, ever faster, ever harder, ever more effective weapons consists a human rigths violation of her own accord. I won't easily forget it also, the israeli statement was the first time i ever saw the word DIME. 24.132.170.97 ( talk) 06:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the opposite argument is more logical. That a more effective weapon with less collateral damage is more humane. Killing someone with a pistol to the head, or spraying wildly from a machine gun is murder all the same... but the pistol is far less likely to kill bystanders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.152.208 ( talk) 13:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The article says that "several doctrs" suggest that Israel was using DIME weapons, but when I checked the sources I found that those "several doctors" was only one heavily-polemic Norwegian doctor, Dr. Mads Gilbert. -- 200.127.56.65 ( talk) 05:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, Dr. Mads Gilbert claims that it is possible that the weapon was used, not that it was. So far this part is pure speculation and does not belong in wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.68.134.105 ( talk) 08:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I hope that I am entering this correctly. I believe all who criticize Focused Lethality Munitions are trying to garner more sympathy for the people who perform population targeting on Israel using unguided missiles and expect no retaliation. I spent my entire adult career in the Defense Industry as a scientist/engineer and can easily see when someone posts both with no knowledge about the details and larger picture as well as focusing on unrelated topics. If it weren't for Israeli's use of this technology, they would have only the choice of using covert assassination teams (worse PR) or traditional munitions in which the radius of destruction is orders of magnitude greater which absolutely would involve people not-directly related to the targets who have been carefully selected to slow the attacks with the minimal number of casualties. If anyone is familiar with effects of blast and shrapnel at distances from the target and see photos of a single car with the roof peeled back and not only undamaged or mildly damaged buildings and stores on either side of the street but also essentially undamaged car hood and no shattered headlights. One I saw even showed a nearly intact dashboard peeled upwards with one or two sandals next to the destroyed windshield. This is technology which comes extremely close to a marksman's hit using HEIAP .50BMG projectiles. In other photos one can easily see incredible accuracy, to the extent of going through the neighbor's windows in an apartment building and only destroying the insurgent's room. Yes, lives are lost, but that is the nature of war and is far more humane than reducing the entire building and surrounding block.
I don't have the reference but I'm sure the quotes from interviews can easily be found. Even the people who live in Gaza who at the very least personally support the insurgents* have recently nicked the FLM as "Nice Bombs."
My apologies if I've not posted correctly or am off topic. I think that Mr. Herbert's answers and commentary are on topic, rational and trying to keep it a neutral description of the technology. I congratulate him on his meticulousness and knowledge of things I would not discuss.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacgirl2000 ( talk • contribs) 00:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
These devices are often called "dime bombs" on news reports. It took be awhile to find the article since I searched for dime. Perhaps it needs a redirect for the term dime bomb. 172.165.79.93 ( talk) 05:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)