|
5
Nerd-Its
|
|
current event
by When your enemy is hiding deep within a cave or reinforced building, oftentimes bombing the target simply shakes things up rather than causing actual harm. One weapon to mitigate this weakness currently in use by British forces in Afghanistan is the Hellfire AGM-114N missile. The AGM-114N is known as a thermobaric munition designed to expel a fine cloud of volatile mixture, in this case fluorinated aluminium powder, that penetrates deep into the structure, whereupon a secondary charge ignites the cloud. The resultant explosion violently burns all of the oxygen out of a localized area (especially in a cave) creating a suction, vacuum effect that can crush the bodies of enemies hiding beyond normal blast range. Thermobaric weapons are not a new technology and have been used in the past by Russians against Chechnya and employed on few occasions by American forces. However, the weapon comes with a negative international stigma that led the British Ministry of Defense to debate for 18 months whether it could be used. The MoD finally authorized thermobarics after re-designating them as more friendly: "We no longer accept the term thermobaric [for the AGM-114N] as there is no internationally agreed definition. We call it an enhanced blast weapon."
Star This to Save in Your Profile 
Add a Comment (9)
Email This
Message Author
Statistics
Thread parent sort order:
Thread verbosity:
3 Nerd-Its
Rationale for Nice Weapons
Any history buffs out there that can explain to me the history of nice weapons? If I recall correctly, for the longest time armed forces tried to find ways to scare their opponents so badly that they feared initiating a fight due to the horrible way in which they might die. In the same way people don't launch nukes given the horrible result, the same thinking was applied on a small scale.
So is this purely the result of politics? Is there any military advantage to such an approach? Or is this us just trying to be good humans before we end each others' lives? If the latter, it seems very strange to me that if one can arrive at the conclusion "I should kill you" that the person would also think "but let me think of a nice way to do it." To me it's like putting a seat belt in a spaceship, i.e., seat belts are good/smart, but once you launch yourself in a rocket it's not going to do much for you. Likewise, treating people nice is good, but if you've already decided to kill them does it matter?
This comment has 6 replies.
2 Nerd-Its
The US ...
... in Vietnam and I believe the Gulf War as well used a similar tactic. Except where there were large contingent of soldiers. A plane would first fly overhead spraying a fine mist of jet fuel or something similar. Then another jet would follow shortly thereafter and launch a flare into this mist thus igniting the cloud. Same effect; sucks the oxygen out of the air and lungs out the soliders/people on the recieving end of it. Simple but affective; gruesome too.
RSS
Nothing like a more friendly missile! by smcbride :: NR5 :: Show
That sucks your brains out and crushes you at the same-time! Hope I don't run across there more unfriendly missile. These weapons are great as long as your on the giving end and not receiving.