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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.44.89.138 (talk) 20:18, 22 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)

Hellfire missile

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)

Why tungsten?

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)

The distance that a fragment or object travels depends on its density and surface area. The smaller the fragment, the less mass per unit surface area - r^2 for area r^3 for volume scaling laws there. In very rough terms (ignoring a lot of detail effects), the energy loss per distance travelled is constant based on the surface or cross sectional area, so the distance travelled is proportional to the density. Steel has density about 7.8, Tungsten is around 17.2, so the effective blast radius for a DIME with Tungsten is about 2.2 times further (and effective blast volume is 2.2 cubed, or about 10 times more volume affected). With Tungsten DIME, the blast radius is about 40 times the explosive diameter - with steel, it would be about 18 times the explosive diameter. Much less effective. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:43, 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 particles aren't that fine - 1-2 cubic millimeters. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

use in gaza

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)

Whatever the case may be, this topic is going to get a lot more attention, and this entry appears to extremely speculative as it currently stands. (The assertion about potential deaths from cancer, for example, is not actually supported by the information presented at the cited CDC website.) It'd be great if someone who actually knows something about this topic would give it a thorough scrubbing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.36.3 (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sort of curious about why you think the study doesn't support a cancer link - I have corresponded with the study's author on the matter and they certainly do assert and believe that the small (1-2 cubic millimeter) tungsten-nickel alloy fragment surrogates they used caused cancer in the lab rats they tested them on. There was 100% cancer in the test population (n something like 22), 0% in the control group with inert tantalum metal instead of W-Ni. That's all in the initial paper. I've scrubbed earlier versions of the article.

This is brand new, bleeding edge research, but not completely suprising - nickel is a known carcinogen in the body, as it turns out, and the 6% nickel in the tungsten nickel alloy could well be the actual carcinogen. This is rather politically sensitive, as a huge anti-US anti-depleted-uranium backlash after the first gulf war got most of the rest of the world, particularly the European Union, to shift to using tungsten nickel alloy for heavy penetrators and several fragmentation systems. Tungsten nickel having a different, but perhaps worse biological effect (instead of its presumed "inert" behavior, which led to its choice in the first place) is a huge geopolitical ball of wax now, on top of the obvious medical and ethical issues. You're not hearing about German tungsten tank gun rounds (DM33, DM43, DM53 et al) but will as soon as the Greens start looking a bit further out than just Israeli use of tungsten-nickel DIME weapons... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Uranium (Depleted) was used in the Israeli DIME weapons, not tungesten. In fact, UN officals said that they belived that Israel used uranium-based DIME weapons and confirmed they were using white phosporus(banned by international law, due to the fact that the phosphorus slowly burns the human body from the inside due to inhalation) after the attack on the UN storage facility.

ACTUALLY, you are full of crap, as your claims about "white phosporus(banned by international law, due to the fact that the phosphorus slowly burns the human body from the inside due to inhalation)" makes clear. Documentation of Israeli use of WP projectiles clearly reveal that the Israelis were firing M825-series "felt wedge" WP projos, which deploy large felt wedges saturated with WP rather than dispersing small burning particles of WP as the old M110-series WP projos did. M825 "felt wedge" projos merely disperse smoke, the primary risk to persons in the target area is being struck by the heavy steel case of the base-eject projectile after the felt wedges have been ejected.

Your demonstrated untruthfulness---or at best ignorance---makes it clear that you are not a reputable source and that you are incapable of providing reputable information.

Israeli use

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)

additional note regarding this

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)

Wounds are being described which are unambiguously DIME - extensive multiple hits by consistently 1-2mm tungsten fragments (and not smaller or bigger ones). And Israel has relaxed its not confirm or deny stance on DIME.

It's speculative in that the Israeli's haven't admitted what weapon and warhead details were used, and the design details aren't public. But it's not speculative in the "there's no reasonable evidence for the public or press to conclude" sense. We can clearly report that the doctor made the claim, and IMHO the evidence rises to the level we can accept that it's likely true and use that as the basic way of presenting the info in the article.

If an expert source wants to challenge the evidence, or provide an alternate explanation, then perhaps we should revisit. But nobody is doing that.

I don't see any reason even for pro-Israeli enthusiasts to act defensive on this. DIME is a safer weapon for civilians and bystanders, after all... the micro-shrapnel doesn't travel extensive distances, that's the whole point behind DIME and the FLM programs. It's still not widely described in technical detail, but that doesn't mean we can't have an article on it or talk about it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Any weapon whose primary means of killing is by spreading carcinogenic dust is not a safer weapon. I still wonder if the timing of the attack on gaza was driven not so much by the facts on the ground as the delivery of American Cancer Bombs to the Israelis. Hcobb (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't use Wikipedia as a forum for opinion or fighting external political fights - those uses are specifically against our policies here.

The fragments in DIME aren't dust, it's small (1-2mm) metal pieces. You couldn't breathe one in. There is an open question as to whether many people would end up with fragment wounds and embedded fragments that would later cause cancer, versus people just killed outright. TNT is toxic, as are many explosives used by the military, but people on the receiving end of artillery shells and bombs generally die of the explosion rather than have any lasting effects from the explosives' chemicals. Toxins aren't prohibited in warfare (lead, anyone?). Just use as toxins, intending to poison people.

Normal artillery shells and bombs kill people thousands of feet away, due to large heavy fragments being generated from their casings. Those are normal, accepted risks in warfare, and using bombs and artillery against specific targets mixed in with civilians, even in cities, is legal under international law, as long as you are using delivery methods which are proportionally precise for the target's location you are attacking. DIME limits the danger zone significantly, down to about 50 times the shell's diameter. You will kill a lot less innocent civilians with a DIME weapon.

Warfare is ugly. The carcinogenic effects of the tungsten are new (study is very new) and unexpected (tungsten alloys were thought by all involved to be inert until a little while ago). Perhaps it should be used less in the future. But the use of DU is legal, even though it has immediate toxic heavy metal effects, the use of lead is legal, even though it's a toxic heavy metal, the use of toxic explosives is legal, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:43, 21 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.

• if I lived in Ventura which happened to be perturbed about the NWB so factions randomly and frequently launched rockets there, I would if I had to hike to move out of that place!

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacgirl2000 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Dime bomb redirect

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)

I have created DIME bomb which redirects to this page. Thanks for the suggestion! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)