DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Bomb Squad » Navy’s Deadly New Darts

Navy’s Deadly New Darts

venom release.jpg
This is a new piece of Navy hard­ware: a mod­i­fied satellite-​​guided bomb, releas­ing thou­sands of darts, each car­ry­ing a pay­load of a pow­er­ful chem­i­cal called DETA. It sounds fear­some, but it’s a new coun­ter­mine tech­nol­ogy for tak­ing out mines in the surf zone which I describe in New Scientist here.
One of the inter­est­ing fea­tures is the .50-​​caliber Venom dart, which hits at rel­a­tively low veloc­ity, but can still go through ten to twelve feet of water or two feet of stand and retain its effec­tive­ness. The secret is in the blunt nose: its another one of those cav­i­tat­ing designs, a rel­a­tive of the Russian Shkval and its Iranian cousin that caused so much stir last year. These form a bub­ble around them­selves to reduce water fric­tion, and as a result the Venom dart goes way deeper than a con­ven­tional design.
Perhaps more sig­nif­i­cant is how effec­tive it is against sand mak­ing it a kind of minia­ture ver­sion of Lockheeds bunker-​​busting Cavity Penetrator I described in 2005. However, the big dif­fer­ence is that sand can act as a fluid, whereas hard rock which the Lockheed design is sup­posed to glide through at high speed — is another mat­ter. My sus­pi­cion is that this approach will not work well in solids, and we will see if Lockheed can make good on their claims of increas­ing pen­e­tra­tion thri­ough rock by a facot of five or more.
The Office of Naval Research design releases the cloud of darts from a thou­sand feet or so, but they all impact in an area just sixty feet across. That in itself is an indi­ca­tion of the level of pre­ci­sion guid­ance which is now pos­si­ble with this tech­nique one which might be ada­p­ated for a other muni­tions attack­ing small tar­gets with­out col­lat­eral dam­age.
The other inter­est­ing thing about the Venom dart is this idea of neu­tral­iz­ing ord­nance by chem­i­cals means. Of course its been tried before, but in this case there seems to be a gen­uinely effec­tive means of deliv­er­ing it from a safe stand-​​off dis­tance. It would not take too much bril­liance to design a hand-​​held launcher for the darts, a use­ful option for quickly and reli­ably deal­ing with mines and IEDs with­out hav­ing to get close to them.
– David Hambling

Share |

January 23rd, 2007 | Bomb Squad | 341053 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2007/01/23/navys-deadly-new-darts/Navy%27s+Deadly+New+Darts2007-01-23+16%3A11%3A28david_axe You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Move Over, Minority Report | China Cops to Sat Kill; Mysteries Remain » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Robot.Economist says:
    January 23, 2007 at 1:05 pm

    David — Do you know why the darts are released at such a high alti­tude? 60 feet is a pretty tight effect radius from 1000 feet, but why not try for some­thing even tighter by releas­ing them at a lower alti­tude?
    It def­i­nitely looks pretty cool.

    Reply
  2. mrnitropb says:
    January 23, 2007 at 4:35 pm

    I can just imag­ine the stink raised when some civil­ians, or even the enemy with a cam­corder, get hit with some of these things.
    “US INDISCRIMENANTLY INJECTING CIVILIANS WITH CHEMICAL WEAPONS!” “POISON CLUSTER BOMBs USED AGAINST INSURGENTS“
    Cue the “well, its not a chem­i­cal weapon per se…” discussion.

    Reply
  3. Davis, A says:
    January 24, 2007 at 10:53 am

    This thing is what night­mares are made of!… I like it and I think it could come in pretty no mat­ter where or how we use it.

    Reply
  4. David hambling says:
    January 24, 2007 at 12:52 pm

    RE — the high alti­tude release is so that the darts assume a sta­ble atti­tude before they hit, to ensure they come in ver­ti­cal. The could clus­ter tighter, but I believe this is intended to be opti­mal for the num­ber of darts. it’s still a very small area and you would need 10+ bombs to clear a rea­son­able path from sea to shore.
    I’ll be look­ing at more rad­i­cal clear­ance tech­nol­ogy soon.

    Reply
  5. Austin says:
    January 26, 2007 at 11:22 am

    How can this pos­si­bly be more use­ful than explo­sives on the bat­tle­field.
    How on earth are the chem­i­cals help[ful in the destruc­tion of mines?
    Besides, aren’t chem­i­cal weapons illegal?

    Reply
  6. VFVet says:
    January 26, 2007 at 11:29 am

    Hey guys, it’s WAR! Breaking things and killing ene­mies. If some­one is ambitios/​foolish enough to get them­selves on the receiv­ing end of these things, why are we wor­ry­ing about their “envi­ron­ment”?
    Of course, I pre­fer the car­pet bomb­ing option. We’ve got 90+ oper­a­tional B-52s…let’s use ‘em!

    Reply
  7. Brad Fletcher says:
    January 26, 2007 at 11:39 am

    Terrorists plant IEDs and lie in wait to attack the sur­vivors because they are too cow­ardly to fight face to face. Whether its American or Iraqi troops they oppose, they just can­not muster the courage to act like real men, thus IEDs were born.
    Did I hear some­one snivel­ing about a highly alka­line in H2O solu­tion? Suspected Immunotoxicant? So what? The bot­tom line is that such weapons were devel­oped as coun­ter­mea­sures to IEDs.
    Its a sim­ple con­cept: bet­ter to cause death and injury to cow­ards who plant IEDs than allow them to hurt the good guys.
    When was the last time you heard of a ter­ror­ist bomb, IED or sui­cide bomber using a device designed to min­i­mize col­lat­eral damage?

    Reply
  8. Ben says:
    January 26, 2007 at 11:42 am

    the idea that these would be used as anti-​​personel bombs is ludi­crous.…
    you have to find the enemy first. retards. and then the intel you get is usu­ally wrong, so they aren’t where you thought they were, and if they are, tiny darts aren’t going to pierce through the bunkers and caves they’re liv­ing in.
    as for the chem­i­cal, why would human beings be hang­ing around a mind field where these will be dropped any­way? the chem­i­cal is noth­ing long last­ing, anyway…

    Reply
  9. TAB says:
    January 26, 2007 at 11:48 am

    Hey, what­ever it takes to neu­tral­ize the bad guys. They were not edu­cated nor do they care about the Geneva con­ven­tion. “Illegal chem­i­cals.” Isn’t ter­ror­ism and mur­der ille­gal. Who cares if there’s chem­i­cals. Gun pow­der is a chemical.….

    Reply
  10. Greg says:
    January 26, 2007 at 12:07 pm

    Yes chem­i­cal weapons are ille­gal, espe­cially in fab­ric soft­en­ers:
    Ethyleneamine-​​based fab­ric soft­en­ers are com­monly added to tex­tile mate­ri­als to make them less harsh, “softer” or more pleas­ing to the touch. Softeners also act as anti­sta­tic and anti­soil­ing agents, and impart fluffi­ness. Softeners are added to the home wash­ing machine dur­ing a rinse cycle or as part of a detergent/​softener com­bi­na­tion prod­uct, or to the clothes dryer. Softening agents based on Diethylenetriamine (DETA) and Triethylenetetramine (TETA) are also used in indus­trial tex­tile pro­cess­ing oper­a­tions. The most com­mon ethyleneamine-​​based fab­ric soft­en­ers are bis-​​amidoamines or imi­da­zo­lines made from DETA and fatty acids. AEEA, DETA and TETA
    Isopropanolamine Mixture is used in hand cleaner for­mu­la­tions.
    cour­tesy of a DETA manufacturer

    Reply
  11. Ed Freeman says:
    January 26, 2007 at 12:22 pm

    I think any weapon that gives us the upper hand is great but let us not for­get Vietnam and agent orange. A chem­i­cal weapon that did more harm to our own troops then good. So ok chem­i­cals may be the way to go but lets be ever mind­ful that our troops are on the bat­tle­field also. The all they come first above all else

    Reply
  12. charles marion says:
    January 26, 2007 at 12:33 pm

    The ter­ror­ist have home field advan­tage. Americans need to wake up, we have entered a foot­ball game wear­ing hockey skates, if we are not will­ing to play by the rules of the game we need to get off of the field. Our rules of engage­ment are noth­ing short of send­ing in Willy Shoemaker (Jockey) to take out Michael Jordan on the bas­ket­ball court, sure it will sell tick­ets but strate­gi­cally not so smart. It took 2 atomic bombs to get Japan to sur­ren­der and they only hated us for 5 years prior to the bomb­ing. the mus­lim world has hated us for a thou­sand years, do the math.

    Reply
  13. Forge365 says:
    January 26, 2007 at 1:05 pm

    Hey Guys, I have a rad­i­cal idea for fight­ing this uncon­ven­tional ‘war’. Lets seal the bor­ders with the other coun­tries, thereby iso­lat­ing Iraq (Afganistan, Iran, Washington DC, etc) from get­ting aid or sup­port from them. Form a cor­don 0.5 mile in from said bor­ders, NO ONE IN, NO ONE OUT. Pull all of our troops into said ‘safe’ areas, and let the indi­gents have at it. Last per­son stand­ing forms the new gov­ern­ment. If you attempt to leave or enter, you are turned back once, if you try again, you are sim­ply killed on the spot. If you approach to within 3000 feet of a safe area more than once, you get a wel­com­ing gift from a bar­rett .50 or a mannlicher 6.8. A few times of this under a very tight air cover, guess what, they quit try­ing and dying and learn to get along…just my two cents worth.

    Reply
  14. tshaw says:
    January 26, 2007 at 1:05 pm

    The US is only 231 years old so 1,000 years of hate for us is a bit over­stated. I would con­cede about 90 years, since the dis­cov­ery of the giant oil fields and sub­se­quent American influx.

    Reply
  15. Paul McSweeney says:
    January 26, 2007 at 1:26 pm

    Unfortunately, the neg­a­tive feel­ings toward “Western Civilization” go back much fur­ther than 90 years. It seems the Ottoman Empire had the same agenda. Times and tac­tics have changed, but not the end goal.

    Reply
  16. D. Lovelace says:
    January 26, 2007 at 1:54 pm

    Just use any­thing that will get rid of the enemy and bring our boys home.
    We don’t need to mess around with these guys as if they are not fight­ing their not eat­ing..
    Go back to the old tried and true method. I do mean don’t ever put our men in harms way.
    If darts work go for it. Bouncing betty’s, the fifty thou­sands pounders.
    Let’s play for keeps. We’re not over their for our health..

    Reply
  17. Larry Sowder says:
    January 26, 2007 at 1:56 pm

    I was in Veitnam, i think we should put a glass dome over the Iraq, Iran bor­ders that way no more killings. Take the gloves off is all im saying

    Reply
  18. L. Myers (A02) says:
    January 26, 2007 at 2:14 pm

    I agree with most of the posts on this sub­ject. Whatever it takes. I enjoy as much as the next guy watch­ing videos of our men and women kick­ing butt. However I think it is time to pull the Cameras, and reporters out and get the job done BY ANY MEANS!! As my old Odnance han­del­ing offi­cer use to say: “Kill em all and let God sort em out!!”

    Reply
  19. Paul Aguilar says:
    January 26, 2007 at 2:56 pm

    I am more con­cerned with the ide­ol­ogy behind the var­i­ous sects of Islam and why They (ter­ror­ist
    fac­tions) call the Western influ­ences ‘infi­dels’. They
    seem to destroy Their own peo­ple (who believe in
    the Koran) with equal zeal. Is it Their to DICTATE
    to all denizens of Their ‘Holy Land’ as to the style
    and method of liv­ing? Isn’t that Totalitarianism or
    Tyrrany in itself? Are They becom­ing their own despised enemy? Shouldn’t They declare ‘Jihad’ upon
    them­selves? Incidentally, their are many nations with
    self-​​deterministic cul­tures which are not as American
    democ­ra­cies. Some of these type Nations are out
    of the ‘Western’ world. Should the ‘Jihadist’ take
    they self-​​righteous com­bat against civil­ian tar­gets
    there as well? It would be the Cowardly thing to do!

    Reply
  20. bujinin says:
    January 26, 2007 at 3:09 pm

    Being a descen­dant of Huguenots and still pissed with Louis Quatorze, the “Kill’em all, Let God sort em out” doesn’t sound good what­ever reli­gion is involved. It does mat­ter who we kill and how. this weapon sounds good, but i’d like to know how the chem­i­cal works, resid­u­als and all that enviro stuff that so “gores” the killer-​​effete

    Reply
  21. TONY CUCCARO says:
    January 26, 2007 at 3:33 pm

    I WAS IN VIETNAM 67 68 DURING TET AND AT KHESANH. WE NEED TO STOP FOOLING AROUND WITH THOSE PEOPLE AND USE OUR B52’S AND START A SERIES OF CARPET BOMBING. THEY HAVE NO REGARD FOR LIFE, THEY KILL THERE OWN PEOPLE SO LETS HELP THEM OUT AND BOMB THE HELL OUT OF THEM

    Reply
  22. Thompson says:
    January 26, 2007 at 3:45 pm

    Where is Harry Truman type Goverment when we need it. If we would use the the big boy just once I bet all the so called Terrist would give up if all their coun­try was unliv­able for 50 years.

    Reply
  23. Fran Merenda says:
    January 26, 2007 at 3:52 pm

    Those of us who were around dur­ing WWII know that the war was won by cut­ting the sup­ply lines of both the Japanese and the Germans. Evidently the Iraq sit­u­a­tion is out of hand because sup­plies are get­ting through­Take away their ammo and food­sup­ply lines and things will come to a standstill

    Reply
  24. Barry says:
    January 26, 2007 at 3:54 pm

    ‘Kill them all and let God sort them out’ if we don’t do it to them they will cer­tainly do it to us. They have pro­fessed this to us for many years. Pull the troops back 1 mile and car­pet bomb them. They have no com­pul­sion what so ever for the ‘inno­cents’ when they deal with the United States. I was in Viet Nam and had to put up with ‘mother may I shoot?’ rules of engagment.

    Reply
  25. Rich says:
    January 26, 2007 at 4:31 pm

    Again, you need to read the arti­cle. The weapons are used to clear 60 feet of beach from mines. which is why the darts go through water and sand. They not intended to be used on peo­ple nor do the chem­i­cals have any use on peo­ple. Although I’m sure any peo­ple on the beach would be in trou­ble with the den­sity of the darts, but the dan­ger would be from the darts, rather than the chemicals.

    Reply
  26. TrickyVic says:
    January 26, 2007 at 4:53 pm

    Few obser­va­tions
    1. Call ‘em cow­ards if you want but those cow­ards have kept us at bay for almost 4 years.
    2. We can’t secure our own bor­der with the resouces we have in the US. So for­get about secur­ing theirs with the lim­ited resources we have in Iraq.
    3. Sure we could drop a lot of big bombs. I’m never against that if it get us closer to our objec­tive. Since our objec­tive is the lib­er­a­tion of the Iraqis (Bush’s words, Bush’s plan, I’m back­ing him the best I can) the B52s can not bring us closer to our objec­tive. Unless Bush’s plan was to lib­er­ate them from their earthly bod­ies. lol. If that’s the case put ‘em in the air.
    4. The chem­i­cal dart. I like new tech as much as the next techie and I love mil­i­tary hard­ware. But I must point out that our gov­ern­ment has never been forth­right about the haz­ards. How many years did it take them to acknowl­edge the Agent Orange issues. How about gulf war issues, and depleated urainium? I don’t think demand­ing to know effects of chems is unrea­son­able know­ing their abil­ity to deny those who served a lit­tle respect. But with that aside, I like the weapon.
    5. Mother may I shoot is BS regard­less of the cam­paign. But that’s a prob­lem with respects to the mis­sion. In reg­u­lar war those con­traints are not a rigously applied. However you see them used more in polic­ing actions that are mis-​​titled as a war. I don’t think Iraq has been a war in years, it’s been a pro­tracted polic­ing mis­sion with some mis­guided coun­terin­sur­gency effort. Our mil­i­tary never does well when they have to be cops. Our mil­i­tary does great when we kill and destroy to take land, we have always done well at that, even if we have to do it twice because we don’t have enough troops to hold. That’s what we do.
    I’ve been a sup­porter of send­ing an addi­tional 200,000 troops. The “go big” plan as the Pentagon is call­ing it. I’m start­ing to think it’s too big and too costly for Bush and America to sign-​​up. It may require a draft, which I’m not for because it will dilute the qual­ity of our ranks, and it would require a war tax to pay for it. Bush doesn’t want that.
    If this war is so impor­tant that our very exis­tence could be rid­ing on it, why would we send a mere 21,000 more troops to respond to a threat so large? Shouldn’t the response be equal or greater than the threat?
    I was taught to never under-​​estimate your enemy. What the hell hap­pened with that?
    I was taught to deny the enemy his sup­plies.
    In this case we let them have access to all of Iraq’s con­ven­tional weapons depots, by fail­ing to secure them at the start of the war.
    I’m a fan of Rummy but he really has me scratch­ing my head say­ing WTF on this one.
    One of the great­est say­ings I learned in the Marines was Prior Planning Prevents Piss-​​poor Performance. I guess no one got the word.
    Oh yeah, this thread is about the darts!!
    I like it. But I won­der how effec­tive it can be. Sure it could be good when you know where the mines are, but would you use it as a sort of recon by fire when search­ing for mines? I won­der how much one round would cost and are the Seabees just as effec­tive for less the price.

    Reply
  27. Carlos says:
    January 26, 2007 at 5:31 pm

    I love the mil­i­tary, I love the tech­nol­ogy. But F*@ck the Iraq war, just nuke the damn bas­tards so we can go home and for­get this BS we call our President!

    Reply
  28. Neil C. Reinharddt says:
    January 26, 2007 at 7:03 pm

    I see some pea brains with no clue as to the facts do not think our war in Iraq is cor­rect.
    Well, you clue­less clod, this Agnostic Atheist (to show I am no neo-​​con) vet who served in the 101st) sub­mits any­one who does not know our actions in Iraq are fully jus­ti­fied and a nec­es­sary part of our war on ter­ror is EITHER igno­rant of PROVEN facts OR they are just TOO STUPID to under­stand the facts.

    Reply
  29. Tom says:
    January 26, 2007 at 7:24 pm

    I won­der if the flechett rounds that we use in 105’s is close to the same thing as the darts? If they worked in water they would prob­a­bly be a heck of a lot cheaper.

    Reply
  30. chris says:
    January 26, 2007 at 8:01 pm

    Been trough alot,but feel sorry for our boys and girls in the filed.
    All I can ask is any­one remem­ber the nutron bomb?
    Get our troops put and drop that sucker!
    End of it ALL!!!

    Reply
  31. Mike says:
    January 26, 2007 at 9:00 pm

    I read these posts and just go back to the hid­den Marine infantry­man that lurks inside me. I teach HS now in Brooklyn NY. I have some pics of me and my bud­dies car­ry­ing fel­low Marine dur­ing the beu­rut con­flict hang­ing on my cork board above my desk. I look so young that I got used to telling the stu­dents that I knew the guys in the pic­tures. I never point to me. There must be so many peo­ple like me. We are pro­duc­ing more now with this con­flict. I wish we could all get together in a major sports arena and party. No civil­ians allowed. If you want to share a story with a vet so be it. If not, talk about fam­ily, kids, new life. We need to unite. No politi­cians unless they served in a con­flict. I would even give respect to the politi­cians that were held in the rear. The guilt of not being able to go foward of the FEBA and serve under fire. They asked to serve but got screwed. Maybe for the bet­ter in my mind. They are actu­ally lucky. When I was in Beirut, I spoke to a suck­ing chest wound LT who was a for­mer Army Ranger turned Marine offi­cer. He died in 15 min­utes after we flew him out. Sometimes, he talks to me in dreams. I got over the fear of wak­ing up sud­denly and feel­ing his pres­ence. No more fear. We will join him soon. I just want to live for my chil­dren and leave them when I have to with all of my wis­dom. They will carry on.

    Reply
  32. Bob S. says:
    January 26, 2007 at 10:26 pm

    I served dur­ing Vietnam and went to Korea right after the Pueblo was cap­tured. This war (Iraq) is a pol­ished war. First of all, the media needs to be removed and then we need to let out men and women take over the place. In other words, kick ass and take names later

    Reply
  33. RexIrae says:
    January 27, 2007 at 4:45 am

    this is obvi­ously an anti per­son­nel weapon. the group­ing wouldnt work from that alti­tude. also, DETA
    http://​www​.dow​.com/​P​u​b​l​i​s​h​e​d​L​i​t​e​r​a​t​u​r​e​/​d​h​_​0​3​bf/ 09002f13803bfdbc.pdf?filepath=amines/pdfs/noreg/108–01370.pdf&fromPage=GetDoc
    is a skin irri­tant. is this sup­posed to help our guys in a surf zone? I think it makes them impos­si­ble to remove and that causes a great health haz­ard even after the fight.

    Reply
  34. robertleehorton says:
    January 27, 2007 at 8:12 am

    GET THE NEWS MEDIA out and let the sol­diers do what they have been trained to do… the Media is the cause of so many mis­takes being made and even coaxed upon our Soldiers, the Media was our worst enemy in Vietnam and they are the same here, always show­ing the worst and never the good stroies and the Victories, there fore the enemy is the Media… BACK OFF, unless youre ready to become a Soldier and actu­ally fight for your rights and free­doms which we all doubt..

    Reply
  35. kyliniemi says:
    January 27, 2007 at 11:32 am

    Munitions with chem­i­cals? Any one in the mil­i­tary who would launch it and the one’s who ordered it would be fac­ing a war crimes tri­bunal. Get real.

    Reply
  36. A Real Patriot says:
    January 28, 2007 at 7:47 pm

    Hey, kylin­iemi !!! You bet­ter get your head out of the sand and pay atten­tion! Doe’s this arti­cle say any­thing about “Chemicals of mass destruc­tion”? These are obvi­ously designed to det­o­nate the mine,next time real the whole arti­cle. Or admit that you are a lib­eral. In that case, you are not smart enough to read the whole thing!

    Reply
  37. Robert Jewett SSG Retired says:
    January 29, 2007 at 5:51 pm

    Guys– “This is not a poi­son gas weapon the chemi­cial is not released until the darts are well underground(undersea), the Chemicial reacts with nitrates like in plas­tic explo­sives, & SIMEX. It makes then chance into amides, and cease to be explo­sive. Any civil­ians in the area of the darts would be in greater dan­ger of step­ping on one of their own mines. the DETA over a few weeks nat­u­rally decom­poses int ammo­nia and other non-​​toxic stuff. it is non carco­genic. True if you get a big dose, hot, it would be bad, so would a lot of things used in the USA every day.
    “Maybe it would just be bet­ter for us to advoid the entire area, and leave the mines for the kids play­ing on the beach to step on by accident.”

    Reply
  38. G Hayes says:
    February 6, 2007 at 11:02 am

    DETA, really isnt a chem­i­cal, its an explo­sive nor­mally used in sheet form. Yes it is a chem­i­cal explo­sive but so is EVERY other explo­sive. C-​​4 for exam­ple is made out of RDX and a plas­ti­cizer with a mix of 91% and 9% respec­tively. So yes every­ht­ing is a “chem­i­cal” but mil­i­tary stan­dards for explo­sives state that they must be min­i­mally toxic. You dont want your aver­age engi­neer run­ning around with c-​​4 in his pocket being exposed to some chem­i­cal that is going to rot his leg off. As long as you dont eat it, you are good to go.

    Reply
  39. kyliniemi says:
    February 6, 2007 at 8:08 pm

    DETA is a chem­i­cal in liq­uid form, read the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet). The arti­cle says it neu­tral­izes the explo­sive not det­o­nates it. How long does it take? Hours, days or weeks?
    Can’t they use the darts with­out the chem­i­cal? Criticizing a bad idea does not make one a lib­eral or un-​​American.

    Reply
  40. David Hambling says:
    February 9, 2007 at 10:26 am

    Some inter­est­ing com­ments here, though it seems the word ‘chem­i­cal’ is a trig­ger for some folks.
    The DETA causes the explo­sive to burn rather than explod­ing, and neu­tralises it in sec­onds. The result­ing debris may not be too envi­ron­men­tally friendly, but it’s a great deal bet­ter than a live minefield.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Keep it Simple
      To the poster "Zandor" : You wrote: "Your last post...
      freefallingbomb
    • Airbag Defense
      Part III : You wrote: "These airbags are made similarly, so the...
      freefallingbomb
    • Airbag Defense
      To the educated guesser: Part I : …………...
      freefallingbomb
    • Special Forces Say ‘No’ to M4 Barrel
      Only two companies in the world are...
      Frank Hols
    • Adapting Women to Subs
      Dear Designer; It is somewhat strange that the German Armed forces...
      Zandor
    • Special Forces Say ‘No’ to M4 Barrel
      The first priority is to get a reliable...
      Brian
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      I've seen them to. Believe me, I hate those 19 just as much as...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      You are funny.
      Zandor
    • Adapting Women to Subs
      Wow after reading these varied comments, I am surprised and educated. I...
      John
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      No one is saying that christains never do violent things we do all faiths...
      Valcan
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage