Comments on: Thermobaric Foes: Explosive Threat

By: Brian

Brian — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 14:48:52 +0000

Any article that references HRW is immediately suspect as propagandizing angst; it is no longer a serious article. ThUD (Termobaric Urban Demolition) is no different from bombs, artillery, and satchel charges: the building is demolished. As to people inside, we return fire from whence we received fire. No civilians are involved; those who would have been civilians ceased to be civilians when the AMM (Angry Muslim Militants) used the civilian-occupied building as a firing point. Thereafter, the former-civilians are now (in)voluntary human shields. The outrage should be against the AMM, not the SMAW-ThUD.

By: surya

surya — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:37:44 +0000

more information

By: chs

chs — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:49:09 +0000

i thinkthe bad you cant get away and wat about if bad people get theam no 1 wouls suvive

By: John

John — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 05:54:00 +0000

Killing is Killing, no matter what weapon you use the objective is the same, there is no such thing as Killing humanely.

By: Walker

Walker — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 20:30:38 +0000

“No, the Europeans are worse — even the term ‘thermobaric’ is beyond the pale in the UK.“
Things change:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/British_Army_deploys_new_weapon_based_0823.html

By: Dick

Dick — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:31:09 +0000

The fuel air weapon was secretly experimented with in Loas 1969–1970. Concept was to use a ‘small’ portable fuel dispensing device remotely triggered for use against the trail, route 10 etc. Atmospheric / tropical conditions was the major problem.
You will NEVER see this confirmed, something about it now being classified as a WMD.
Air Force had a pretty good fuel air bomb, another story but less classified.

By: dk

dk — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 01:22:52 +0000

Are the results of Project Albert regarding considerations of both defenders and attackers having access to these weapons available anywhere? I’d be interested to read more about that but the reference link given above had been discontinued, http://www.mcwl.quantico.usmc.mil/Albert/paiw6/outbriefs/ebw.ppt
Many thanks!
dk

By: David Hambling

David Hambling — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:45:59 +0000

Pete,
No, the Europeans are worse — even the term ‘thermobaric’ is beyond the pale in the UK.
Interestingly, the thermobaric SMAW-NE is a suggested replacement for the Flash M202A1, which itself replaced those old-style WWII flamethrowers. But it won’t necessarily get better press.
Trying not to make war more inhumane is a tricky business.

By: pete

pete — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:48:34 +0000

Well Thank you David. I was not aware of the classifications of these different explosives because of the hype surrounding the term “fuel-air” explosives. It reminds me of the hype surrounding “napalm” during the Vietnam Conflict.
As if we didn’t firebomb cities and use flame-throwers during WW2.
Now we are hearing that WP is a horrible, brutal weapon and inhumane to boot. The politics behind this stuff can begin to get very silly. The only country that I can think of off the top of my head that engages in such platitudes is the good ol’ US of A.

By: Wembley

Wembley — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 07:47:05 +0000

This is a new capability — HEAT rounds are notoriously bad at causing damage after they penetrate, and being able to clear bunkers and buildings with a single shoulder-launched round changes things. If it really means that whole cities get flattened then tactics (and expectations) need to be adjusted.
In the short term, the effect on body armor and vehicles is of more concern. Sounds like thermobarics are good for ‘asymmetric’ warfare against advanced opposition which is not good news.