backtop


Print 62 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Jan 28 at 5:45 AM


Images courtesy Naval Surface Warfare Center
The Navy's latest weapon in the fight against land mines makes uses of a modified JDAM

The U.S. Navy has developed a new countermine projectile that could end up saving lives on the battlefield. The projectile will be used to clear mine fields on beaches and within the breaker zone.

The Navy is using a modified version of the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) which houses thousands of "Venom Penetrator" darts. Each Venom Penetrator is roughly six inches long and is tipped with hardened tungsten. Inside each dart is liquid diethylene triamine (DETA).

The JDAM is dropped from an aircraft as it approaches the minefield. Once the JDAM is roughly 1,000 feet over the target area, the munition fragments and the Venom Penetrators are hurtled towards the ground at 300 meters per second.

Thanks to its hardened tungsten nose, each Venom dart is able to travel to a depth of ten to twelve feet under water or up to 2 feet under sand. The force of impact from the projectile should trigger a landmine to explode in most cases. If the mine is not triggered on impact, the alkaline-based DETA solution delivered by the Venom Penetrator neutralizes the landmine by corroding its explosive filling.

Despite being a promising technology in the countermine offensive, there are critics of the system. "With the dart method, it may be difficult to say whether the explosive has been safely burned away or whether the mine is still dangerous," said Adam Komorowski of the Mines Advisory Group.

For more information on the development of the Venom Penetrator, you can view the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Division 2005 Quarterly report (PDF).



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Am I the only one
By AlabamaMan on 1/25/2007 3:47:00 PM , Rating: 5
Who thins that a cloud of sharp, fast-moving darts large enough to cover an entire field and carrying a toxic chemical would make a very potent anti-personnel weapon?




RE: Am I the only one
By Dmitheon on 1/25/2007 3:49:57 PM , Rating: 2
darn you beat me to it :-)


RE: Am I the only one
By AxemanFU on 1/25/2007 5:54:04 PM , Rating: 2
We already have cluster bombs. This is a much more expensive way of doing the same thing, as far as attacking infantry or light vehicles. Shrapnel is a lot cheaper than darts with chemicals in them.

This probably has very specific and limited applications, like clearing a gap in a known mine belt for an assault, not for general purpose mine clearing.


RE: Am I the only one
By arazok on 1/25/2007 8:33:08 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, but these would be so much cooler!

Cluster bombs leave uninspiring tiny pieces of carnage behind. These would leave one horrific scene of death from above. Much more Hollywood, and considering the business the military is in, more polished.

Show a few pictures of THAT scene to the enemy and see if those 72 virgins are still worth it.


RE: Am I the only one
By Tsuwamono on 1/25/07, Rating: -1
RE: Am I the only one
By masher2 (blog) on 1/25/2007 10:06:52 PM , Rating: 2
Point of fact, quite a few do indeed believe it.

By the way, there's an interesting viewpoint that the "hur" (commonly interpreted as houris) in the Quran actually refers to grapes, as in the grapes of Paradise. So they may be disappointed to find themselves among 72 grapes, rather than virgins...


RE: Am I the only one
By rushfan2006 on 1/26/2007 9:19:53 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder if they are at least seedless.....

;)



RE: Am I the only one
By tdawg on 1/25/2007 4:04:16 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure using this to attack personnel is against the Geneva Convention decrees. As far as I've heard, you aren't allowed to snipe anybody with a .50 caliber bullet, so raining accelerated, toxic darts would be out of the question.


RE: Am I the only one
By masher2 (blog) on 1/25/2007 4:14:35 PM , Rating: 1
I don't believe the Geneva Convention would ban either this or .50 cal sniping. If you have information to the contrary, please let me know.


RE: Am I the only one
By lukasbradley on 1/25/2007 4:24:51 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not an expert on the subject, but, for what it is worth: according to some, the .50 is not a banned weapon.

http://military-forums.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7461...

I tried to reword my sentence above several times, but don't know how to say it better.


RE: Am I the only one
By Christopher1 on 1/25/2007 4:36:46 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, you are right. The only time that something is a banned weapon is when it is totally designed to SOLELY severely wound soldiers to the point of not dying, but being amputated and losing limbs.

.50 caliber sniping...... perfectly allowable by Geneva convention standards.
Raining something like this down on soldiers...... probably not allowable by Geneva convention standards.

Really though, we need to get rid of ANYONE who thinks that 'war' is a solution to problems in the world today. It never is.

We have to start cutting things off BEFORE they get to the point where we need to declare war. Helping foreign governments protect themselves from people trying to violently overthrow them. Helping the people who are being oppressed by a government overthrow that government and put a new, good one in place, etc.


RE: Am I the only one
By ChronoReverse on 1/25/2007 5:23:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really though, we need to get rid of ANYONE who thinks that 'war' is a solution to problems in the world today. It never is.

Be wary. That's the kind of thinking that gets the ball rolling on these things. Human nature is fickle isn't it?


RE: Am I the only one
By Ringold on 1/25/2007 5:41:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We have to start cutting things off BEFORE they get to the point where we need to declare war.


Until such a utopia exists I'll just say congratulations to the Navy for coming up with a countermeasure to an increasingly large threat.


RE: Am I the only one
By AxemanFU on 1/25/2007 5:56:17 PM , Rating: 2
LOL..lets go fight and kill everyone who wants to fight...that really makes sense...



RE: Am I the only one
By mindless1 on 1/26/2007 9:41:36 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it does make perfect sense to send into battle anyone who feels like making war, to thin out that element of the population. So you want to travel to exotic distant lands; meet exciting, unusual people and kill them? We've got the job for you, son.

2nd most brilliant is to be sure people are aware their soldiers are then dying, to use public sentiment to justify increased military toy spending.

I was only taking the devil's advocate position above, certainly a military of some fashion will be necessary so long as there are those who aspire to be enemies and it makes no sense not to take advantage of modern technologies instead of going retro, using rocks and spears.


RE: Am I the only one
By rippleyaliens on 1/25/2007 6:58:41 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, shooting a 50 cal at someone is illegal. BUT, there is a sidestep. YOu are allowed to shoot at equipment. Meaning, we cant shoot at people directly, but you can shoot at whatever equipment , wether it is a canteen, radio, weapon, etc....
Only reason i know, is that while in the MArines, we had serious classes, on ethics. War Crimes, and such.
Like the 50 cal machine gun, and the MK19 grenade launcher. We cant directly target people with it, but we can go after the equipment.


RE: Am I the only one
By masher2 (blog) on 1/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: Am I the only one
By thepinkpanther on 1/25/2007 9:02:47 PM , Rating: 1
sure, toxic gasses dont maim people but they are still illegal to use.

Also in war even though USA sometimes forgets it.

But in war almost everything goes.

This weapon seems to be a very poluting weapon. To use it against clusters of men, well i am not sure its very good at it. cluster bombs is by the way also banned by the geneva convention but they are still used to a large degree.

War is always dirty, and we are not sure how many civilian lives that died in the attack on iraq. But one thing is for sure, its a hell of a lot more than USA is telling us.
Do they stop bombing urban areas with AA. No. And the majority of bombs are not smart bombs.


RE: Am I the only one
By masher2 (blog) on 1/25/07, Rating: 0
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 1/26/2007 2:05:40 AM , Rating: 2
Ahem. Well, I'm sure a few people weren't too upset if a company of VC happened to be underneath a 2-ton drop of Agent Orange.

One of the largest mistakes of that war was the insane usages of chemical defoliants. Even if we weren't really using them on people, I guess you could still call it a toxic substance.


RE: Am I the only one
By DocDraken on 1/25/2007 11:33:06 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting how you insist on knowing more about this issue than the people who've actually been in military service.

We were handed pamphlets with the rules of war based on the Geneva conventions and it clearly stated that direct fire on people with the .50 BMG was not allowed (this was in 1996), but as "ripleyaliens" says you could just use the equipment as an excuse, so it's basically a meaningless rule, but it's a rule none the less and not a myth.

Now, this was in the Danish military though and I know that the US has used weapons in wars over the years which are considered "illegal" by the rest of the world under the Geneva convention, like shotguns and WP. So you might not have the same rules regarding .50BMG use.


RE: Am I the only one
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2007 10:49:57 AM , Rating: 1
> "Interesting how you insist on knowing more about this issue than the people who've actually been in military service..."

Yes, I find that interesting also. I'm still correct, however.

> "We were handed pamphlets with the rules of war based on the Geneva conventions and it clearly stated that direct fire on people with the .50 BMG was not allowed..."

From the link earlier in the thread:

quote:
The origins of this myth go back to the Korean War when we had 105mm recoilless rifles. The 105 had a .50 cal spotting rifle used to "ping" the target (armored vehicles usually), then the gunner would fire the 105. Only, troops found that this .50 cal also made a hell of a sniper weapon and would often use it to pick off enemy troops. This gave the weapon's position away and the Koreans (and Chinese) would immediately open fire on it. To stop this from happening, some enterprising SNCO (rumor is it was a USMC Gunny) told the men "not to use the .50 cal on troops in the open.." and as the Geneva Conventions wasn't even dry yet at this time, he added for extra umph "...it's against the Geneva Conventions." And it snowballed from there , eventually being taught in Basic and Boot Camp for several generations of Soldiers and Marines. Some Soldiers and Marines...still believe this myth...

Truth is all of the US weapons systems go through a "Geneva Conventions Test". Every US weapon system has passed the test before being fielded and can be used...on any target on the battlefield....


RE: Am I the only one
By MrOblivious on 1/26/2007 12:41:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yes very interesting as you (and the others who have posted claiming to have been taught the same in the military.......which are eitehr keyboard warriors or taught by incorrctly informed individuals propogating an urban legend) are wrong on all accounts. Shotguns or trenchguns are not banned in text or in interpretation of the Geneva conventions...and neither have .50 cal rifles. The often and incorrectly cited passage is weapons designed to maim which neither the .50cal rifle nor a shotgun was designed to do.

As for illeagal weapons systems I would challeneg you to actually find a system that hs been deemed "illegal", and I wouldn't point that stick to far in this direction at any rate as the day in which it can be said the Danes have used illegal weapons system is fast approaching, enjoy those mines while they last.

And yes I was in the military as has been 7 generations of my family spanning pre and post Geneva Conventions.


RE: Am I the only one
By CascadingDarkness on 1/26/2007 6:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, question for military boys. Couldn't the enemies clothes be considered equipment? or the gun they likely have close to their torso? or night vision flipped up on their helmet? I mean you can basically consider everything their wearing equipment/military hardware to some degree.

Am I wrong or is there some huge written list showing what is considered "equipment".


RE: Am I the only one
By Lakku on 1/26/2007 2:52:41 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, the weapon itself is not banned, but it is anti-vehicular weapon, not anti-personnel. It is not considered small arms either. Technically speaking, it is not against the geneva conventions. However, it IS against the U.S. Rules of Engagement, generally speaking, to use it on personnel. This generally does not stop anyone from using it on personnel, but it is the reason tanks generally had a .50 cal M2 on top and another, small arms coax weapon on the main hull. This coax was meant for personnel. Anyway, it's not overly followed, but it is taught, or was taught to me in my short stay in the Army, to not target personnel with the weapons, but rather to shoot at their equipment or vehicule.


RE: Am I the only one
By Martin Blank on 1/25/2007 8:57:50 PM , Rating: 2
There is no such ban. Snipers have been shooting at people with .50-cal weapons for a long time, and Ma Deuce has been used in anti-personnel situations for decades longer. Carlos Hathcock set a record sniping a North Vietnamese officer using a single shot from an M-2 BMG, and recently Canadian sniper Cpl Rob Furlong broke that record by achieving a kill with a McMillan Tac-50 bolt-action .50BMG rifle. According to his own description, Furlong's first shot hit a bag that the target was carrying as he walked along a road in Afghanistan; the second shot hit the body, killing the target. There was no aiming at equipment involved at all.


RE: Am I the only one
By isaacmacdonald on 1/25/2007 7:35:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really though, we need to get rid of ANYONE who thinks that 'war' is a solution to problems in the world today. It never is


Aside from the slightly disturbing "get rid of" component of your statement, I have to say that this sentiment is strangely pervasive--and in my opinion, a bit off base--in these parts.

Don't get me wrong, war, murder, and violence are all unpleasant things on a personal level. Still the credible threat of violence, and the willingness to follow through is fundamental to any sort of non-kin based cooperation.

IMO the challenge in today's world is not mass disarmament or elimination of all those that are willing to use violence (an impossible and undesirable goal), but rather political reformations and technological innovations that will make international aggression untenable--and perhaps if we're lucky, reduce the chances of incredible bungles like the war in Iraq.


RE: Am I the only one
By gchanjam on 1/26/2007 12:31:21 AM , Rating: 2
It's funny you should say that because we, as the US, are the ones that have overthrown 2 governments just in the last few years. Also, the idea of trying to put in a "good" government in place of a bad one is what got the US in the hole it is in today. Lets also not forget the fiasco between Iran and the US in the 50's (might have been early 60's, I forget sometimes). Also throw in the fact that no one even thinks twice about the genocide in Africa and you've got a government that might not have it's priorities straight.

I know you mean well in what you say but you have to be careful about looking others before you look at yourself.


RE: Am I the only one
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/07, Rating: 0
RE: Am I the only one
By gt1911 on 1/25/2007 4:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
From what I understand the Geneva convention makes no mention of specific weapons of any sort.

It's history is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convent...

And a copy is here:

http://www.un.org/children/conflict/keydocuments/e...

As far as I can tell, and I am also not an expert by any stretch, the convention only deals with people who are not involved or nolonger involved in the battle itself.


RE: Am I the only one
By masher2 (blog) on 1/25/2007 6:28:21 PM , Rating: 1
> "the convention only deals with people who are not involved or nolonger involved in the battle itself..."

No, the GC does indeed ban specific weapons...which is why you never see any soldier firing hollow-point rounds.


RE: Am I the only one
By gt1911 on 1/25/2007 8:15:24 PM , Rating: 2
You show me where. I gave you the links.

The convention talks about how to treat prisoners, civilians and the like. It has nothing to do with the rules of battle.

If you can point to where in the convention it makes either 0.50 cal sniping or using hollow point rounds illegal I will be very interested.

Also you'll note that what appears to be the current version (fourth) was released in 1949, so if it did make referrence to specific weapons (which I can't see), then it's predicitions on what weapons would be produced in the future would be limited


RE: Am I the only one
By gt1911 on 1/25/2007 8:22:55 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry about that first line. I reread it and it reads a lot harsher than I meant it.


RE: Am I the only one
By masher2 (blog) on 1/25/2007 8:51:32 PM , Rating: 1
No problem. Here's the link you requested. Actually, its the Hague Convention, not the Geneva Convention, which bans hollow-point bullets (and several other types of armaments):

Laws of War :
Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/dec99-0...

The Geneva Conventions themselves also prohibit certain types of warfare, though they are less explicit in their descriptions. For instance, Article 35, Protocol 1:

quote:
It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.
The Geneval Protocol (technically not the Geneva Convention, though it is often referred to interchangeably) is the treaty which limits the use of chemical and biological agents in warfare:

http://fas-www.harvard.edu/~hsp/1925.html






RE: Am I the only one
By gt1911 on 1/25/2007 9:22:38 PM , Rating: 2
That sounds more like it. People try to attribute everything to the Geneva Convention.

The Geneva Protocol you link to also seems to be another of the Hague protocols. Considering the age of the first one, 1868, I wonder which countries are a party to it. I am in Australia and we didn't exist as a country in 1868. I imagine there would be a lot of Asian, European an African countries in the same boat.


RE: Am I the only one
By rushfan2006 on 1/26/2007 9:25:06 AM , Rating: 2
Well I got my information on the .50 cal sniping thing not from a posting on the internet - we all know how easy it is to make ANYTING on the net look like a reliable source after all...

I got my information from an actual USMC soldier --- I was told there is a loophole that makes it "ok" --- you aren't supposed to snip DIRECTLY at a human target...however there is nothing stating that you can't snipe "equipment" with a .50 cal.....and so the USMC snipers just consider stuff like a helmet or a belt buckle "equipment".

And that's how it was told to me from a legitimate USMC soldier.



RE: Am I the only one
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2007 11:04:08 AM , Rating: 1
No one expects a marine to be an expert on international law. The text on the various treaties and conventions governing warfare are pretty clear, though. A .50 cal is not prohibited for use on humans...and even if it were, it should be obvious that the claim one was "aiming at a belt buckle" wouldn't prevent a war crimes charge.


RE: Am I the only one
By Captain Orgazmo on 1/25/2007 6:32:54 PM , Rating: 2
You know what else makes a potent anti-personnel weapon? It's called a bomb. Or even better, a cluster bomb.


RE: Am I the only one
By vdig on 1/26/2007 9:15:14 AM , Rating: 2
In regards to those comments about not targeting live human targets with this, I still think it can be used on humans. Say intel pinpoints squadrons placing land mines in certain tactical locations. While the enemy is setting up the mines, one could use this tool to not only defuse what is in place, but also at the same time score collateral by hitting the people who are still in the process of setting them up.

I'm no military guy, though. This is just a thought.


Land mines or chemical wasteland
By Misty Dingos on 1/25/2007 3:32:24 PM , Rating: 2
The chemical in these darts is not very nice. And it doesn't seem to degrade in the environment. I am not saying the cure is worse than the disease but I would not want to be walking through a field with this stuff on the grass. Perhaps the Navy (smart lads and lasses that they are) could add something to the mix to help it break down once released into the environment. I know that folks over at AFRL could do that.




RE: Land mines or chemical wasteland
By Christopher1 on 1/25/2007 4:39:25 PM , Rating: 1
The BEST thing to do in cases of minefields is simply to pay people to go out and remove the landmines, and make it a DEATH PENALTY offense to even build them in the first place.

The world at large is going to have to realize that "Hey, minefields are NOT a weapon that we want to use anymore!" Actually, most of the world has, it is only the most BLOODTHIRSTY of the military idiots who keep on saying "We have to have them in reserve!"


RE: Land mines or chemical wasteland
By Obujuwami on 1/25/2007 5:16:05 PM , Rating: 1
I agree, but what would more entertaining is making death row inmates and child predators find the mines, dig them up, and disarm them. Cleans the gene pool and eliminates some of societies more destructive people. Only problem I see with this is we will eventually run out of people to find the mines or run out of mines.

The venom penetrator is nice because it doesn't put worth while human lives at risk while removing a huge problem. I'm sure Afghanistan(sp?) will see these devices deployed anytime there is a mine field detected.


By bigpimpatl on 1/26/2007 8:28:03 AM , Rating: 2
Regardless, I like your idea of entertainment as watching other people die. And last time I checked, murder and child predation aren't genes or something you inherit. They are just responses to certain environmental and psychological factors that trigger the brain/person to do these things. Ever wonder that most people who are tried for child molestation have often been abused themselves in their childhood?

what lives are "worth while" to you? how do you define what is a "worth while" life? Oh wait, lemme guess, as long as it's not you...right? Or maybe it's the Afghanis lives that aren't worth while, because after all they clearly don't have any right to live and are just worthless human beings that God put on Earth for no reason...


RE: Land mines or chemical wasteland
By SoCalBoomer on 1/25/2007 7:43:59 PM , Rating: 2
That was my thought. . . whatever this stuff is, it's obviously corrosive. . .does it decay and become inert? Is it biodegradable?

I mean, if it doesn't explode and take off limbs, it's probably better than the mines. . . but what about those sweet flailing-chains-tank-thingys. . .? All they do is to blow up the mines and tear up the ground so it can be replanted with grass or whatever. . .

seems like a MUCH better solution. . .


By CascadingDarkness on 1/26/2007 7:35:11 PM , Rating: 2
I personally think Brits might have better system (in some instances anyway)

http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0066.h...

This system is very cool. Couldn't find deploy time anywhere though.


Cool Weapon
By df96817 on 1/25/2007 4:37:31 PM , Rating: 1
Bet they're expensive as hell.




RE: Cool Weapon
By Alexstarfire on 1/25/2007 10:57:05 PM , Rating: 2
Of course it will be, it's for the military. Everything in the military will cost an arm, leg, and your first two born sons. Not to mention the billions of dollars that went into research and production.

I bet if they had spent the military budget on medical research we'd all be living until we were 150 years old, cancer would be cured, and we'd have a vaccine for AIDS/HIV.


RE: Cool Weapon
By masher2 (blog) on 1/25/2007 11:10:09 PM , Rating: 1
> " bet if they had spent the military budget on medical research we'd all be living until we were 150 years old..."

Possibly...but we'd surely be too busy learning German and saluting old portraits of Hitler to enjoy any of that extra time.


RE: Cool Weapon
By bigpimpatl on 1/26/2007 8:11:49 AM , Rating: 2
what are you talking about? The Germans already had MUCH better weapons technology before we got into WWII. Their tanks, rifles, planes, everything we had they had better than us. We ended up winning because we destroyed their manufacturing capabilities while the women at home were producing tanks and bullets left to right...


RE: Cool Weapon
By CascadingDarkness on 1/26/2007 6:54:01 PM , Rating: 2
But just think of the over population due to all the old people and others not getting killed in war. I don't know about you, but unless they find a way to stop aging I don't want to live past 100. Imagine 50 years of diapers.


okay, lets make it better this time
By thepinkpanther on 1/26/2007 5:34:37 AM , Rating: 2
Cluster bombs:

From this side http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=5313

"A significant source of civilian casualties in the Afghan theater that is likely to be a bigger concern in Iraq is the use by allied forces of cluster bombs. Cluster bombs, with their wide scatter radius and many “dud” bomb-lets that are later picked up by civilians and detonated on contact, should be eschewed if there is a war against Iraq. The Geneva Conventions do not outlaw cluster bombs per se and do permit proportionate collateral damage when attacking appropriate military targets. But human rights groups and governments allied with the United States are appealing to the U.S. Government to rule out the use of cluster bombs because they are inherently indiscriminate. Here again, humanitarian law may be more permissive than international and domestic public opinion."

As stated they do hurt civilians and therefore should be banned. Is sure that in the future it will be a banned weapon. Otherwise american soldiers should remove the duds. oh well that wont happend.


"Astonishingly, the United States reportedly also contemplates using antipersonnel landmines in a future war in Iraq and is stockpiling the weapon for that purpose."

Also nice to hear...high five USA.

Really do you think usa have not used toxic gasses, well you are obvious American because they are the most naive of people when talking about such things. They always thinks their land is mother theresa own country. No offense of course.

Its nice to see the venom weapon and the railgun invented for some days ago in another post here on dailytech. USA sure is great at developing weapons to kill all the rest of the globe. I salute USA the nr. 1 most militaristic nation on the world that fears anybody that just thinks on a gun.




RE: okay, lets make it better this time
By bigpimpatl on 1/26/2007 8:45:20 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you 100%

Well, Americans in general have a violent and bloody history from conquering the land from the natives to oppressing blacks for 400 years. Heck, our own president even said in his farewell speech "Be wary of the military-industrial complex." I just love how my tax dollars go to support military technology that ends up/will end up killing people...


By mindless1 on 1/28/2007 5:45:13 AM , Rating: 2
America is probably no different in this, it was merely that being a younger country, in more recent times, there were more accurate recordings of the events. It's always interesting when someone brings up oppressing minorities too, as if that didn't happen either. Were did those pyramids in Egypt come from anyway? Perhaps America has more guilt about it as being a new(er) era we should have hoped mankind had further evolved and put aside these terrible, sometimes horrific practices already. So it may be a matter of whether last (to do it) = worst, or last = status quo


By xanubisx on 1/28/2007 1:36:40 AM , Rating: 2
Ya, Thanks to the USA for developing the new weapons to defend themselves and the countries who chose not to defend themselves or the countries that can not defend themselves. The world lost over 3000 people in the world trade center that is right "The World" because there was not only US citizens in the world trade center when it came crashing down. I hail my country, yes the GREAT USA. The "ONLY" superpower left in the retroactive role we have taken on the war on terror.


alkaline!?
By SSJGohanMlm on 1/25/2007 8:32:47 PM , Rating: 2
wont the alkaline pollute the soil or sand or w/e its surrounding is?




RE: alkaline!?
By bigpimpatl on 1/26/2007 8:34:46 AM , Rating: 2
Everyone has conveniently forgotten the possible environmental destruction this could cause. I guess this serves two purposes for the navy: 1) we destroy the land mines, OR 2) we destroy the area so nobody can re-populate it because of the poison AND we stop them from planting any crops their. Warfare at it's finest!


Looks good
By Gunhoes on 1/26/2007 3:23:39 AM , Rating: 2
for our troops to have to swim / crawl in
HAZARD SUMMARY
* Diethylene Triamine can affect you when breathed in and
by passing through your skin.
* Diethylene Triamine is a CORROSIVE CHEMICAL and
contact can severely irritate and burn the skin and eyes
with possible eye damage.
* Breathing Diethylene Triamine can irritate the nose and
throat causing coughing and wheezing.
* Diethylene Triamine may cause a skin allergy. If allergy
develops, very low future exposure can cause itching and a
skin rash.
* Diethylene Triamine may cause an asthma-like allergy.
Future exposure can cause asthma attacks with shortness
of breath, wheezing, cough, and/or chest tightness.

http://www.nj.gov/health/eoh/rtkweb/0700.pdf




RE: Looks good
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 1/26/2007 3:28:06 AM , Rating: 2
But what's worse? Diethylene Triamine or landmines?


Wartime use only...
By FoxFour on 1/25/2007 11:16:43 PM , Rating: 2
This weapon would not be a general-purpose minefield clearing system. It's unlikely to be thorough enough for reclamation purposes, and as has been noted, it's probably not very environmentally friendly.

But it would be extremely useful in wartime situations where a mostly clear path through a known minefield was required to allow passage for an invasion force (or similarly time-critical movement of personnel or vehicles). 95% effectiveness would likely be "good enough", and who cares about the environmental issues in a shooting war?

Also, the US already has a number of highly effective, air-deployed anti-personnel weapons. There would be no advantage to using this new weapon in that role. Against light armor, though...




RE: Wartime use only...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/25/2007 11:30:08 PM , Rating: 1
> "But it would be extremely useful in wartime situations..."

It's even more specialized than that. It's intended for assault breaching of mine-strewn beaches and surf zones only...not random terrain in general.


Ok, but..
By Dmitheon on 1/25/2007 3:49:22 PM , Rating: 2
what if you drop one over a populated urban area, or a forest? Seems like there could be other applications for this technology.




to the topic
By thepinkpanther on 1/25/2007 9:03:27 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, you are right. The only time that something is a banned weapon is when it is totally designed to SOLELY severely wound soldiers to the point of not dying, but being amputated and losing limbs.

.50 caliber sniping...... perfectly allowable by Geneva convention standards.
Raining something like this down on soldiers...... probably not allowable by Geneva convention standards.

Really though, we need to get rid of ANYONE who thinks that 'war' is a solution to problems in the world today. It never is.

We have to start cutting things off BEFORE they get to the point where we need to declare war. Helping foreign governments protect themselves from people trying to violently overthrow them. Helping the people who are being oppressed by a government overthrow that government and put a new, good one in place, etc.




“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki