4 ms·

> Is there military value in leaving stealthy duds in your enemy's territory? In all fairness -- probably, yes. It's the enemy's territory, and now you've made

> Is there military value in leaving stealthy duds in your enemy's territory? In all fairness -- probably, yes. It's the enemy's territory, and now you've made it more deadly, like an accidental minefield. But I don't think any consideration is given to what happens to duds, what are the civilian consequences or environmental impacts of any part of the weapons lifecycles. It is an industry of death and destruction after all.

ckozlowski 2y ago
It'd likely to be more accurate to say that some are left that simply don't explode yet. A good example would be certain cases of cluster munitions that are designed to hit airfields. A most of the explosives will go off and crater the concrete and asphalt, but others will remain unexploded and sensitive to detonation. As runway repair work cannot commence until those unexploded munitions are cleared, the airfield is out of action longer than it would be otherwise. I understand in these cases and other ones such as scattering mines that a timer can be set so the mine or munition deactivates after a set time (say, a week) by deactivating the fuse. Not all are designed in this way of course. And apologies, I'm looking for source links, but I can't find them at the moment. Edit: Here's an example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GATOR_mine_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GATOR_mine_system
- gmueckl 2y ago
  Given the sometimes impressive fraction of duds among bombs, I am not sure I trust a mine that supposedly deactivated itself on a timer. It may work 9 times out of ten. But it doesn't really make a big difference if it's the first, second or the tenth mine that gets you and rips off your leg.
  - namibj 2y ago
    They deactivate by discharging their power supply, after which they are lacking the stored electrical energy needed to trigger the electrical detonator. It's not fool-proof, but a lot better than chemical/mechanical mechanisms that try to go inert.
mrguyorama 2y ago
>But I don't think any consideration is given to what happens to duds On the contrary. Duds causing UXO is the reason the US and most of NATO chooses not to build cluster munitions anymore, preferring instead pre-formed tungsten balls that are fired like a shotgun when the munition is over it's target. The dud rate was something like 2%, not that much but enough to make the US decide that leaving tens of thousands of UXOs in formerly enemy territory isn't okay. Russian cluster munitions being used in Ukraine right now have a much much higher dud rate, and that's before any bad storage or handling. For similar reasons, many NATO countries have given up types of landmines
- ls612 2y ago
  Modern US munitions have a mechanism that bricks the warhead after a certain amount of time from being fired (years). That way they retain use on the battlefield as a threat to enemy soldiers even if they don't properly detonate but will not pose a long term risk to civilians.
  - justin66 2y ago
    Maybe something useful happens to disable the fuse? The hundreds of pounds of high explosive are still hundreds of pounds of high explosive, in a rusty container, no?
    - gmueckl 2y ago
      The really useful explosives don't go off because of rough handling and don't become unstable over time - both very desirable properties to prevent handling accidents. Ideally, the fuse is the only thing capable of setting it off. So hopefully, the explosive will just sit there in it's shell and stay inert. Most WW II duds are dangerous because of their fuses, not the bulk explosives, as I understand it.
    - 542354234235 2y ago
      While not universal, a lot of modern US munitions use polymer-bonded explosive (PBX) which is much less sensitive to accidental detonation from heat, shock, etc. so it is very unlikely to detonate from anything other than an intentional effort [1, 2]. They also use electro-mechanical fuzing systems, which are good but not great for safety, but are much better than mechanical fuzing [3]. All electric fuzing systems are the safest and are making their way into newer munitions [4]. [1] http://characterisationexplosiveweapons.org/studies/annex-e-mk82-aircraft-bombs/ http://characterisationexplosiveweapons.org/studies/annex-e-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer-bonded_explosive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer-bonded_explosive [3] https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2979&context=utk_gradthes https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2979... [4] https://sdquebec.ca/en/news/fmu-139-db-replaces-three-legacy-bomb-fuzes-improving-reliability-and-affordability https://sdquebec.ca/en/news/fmu-139-db-replaces-three-legacy...
duxup 2y ago
I’m not sure there’s much value in blowing up some poor farmer years after the fact, and the impact for either government is pretty much zero.

ckozlowski 2y ago

It'd likely to be more accurate to say that some are left that simply don't explode yet. A good example would be certain cases of cluster munitions that are designed to hit airfields. A most of the explosives will go off and crater the concrete and asphalt, but others will remain unexploded and sensitive to detonation. As runway repair work cannot commence until those unexploded munitions are cleared, the airfield is out of action longer than it would be otherwise. I understand in these cases and other ones such as scattering mines that a timer can be set so the mine or munition deactivates after a set time (say, a week) by deactivating the fuse. Not all are designed in this way of course. And apologies, I'm looking for source links, but I can't find them at the moment. Edit: Here's an example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GATOR_mine_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GATOR_mine_system

gmueckl 2y ago
Given the sometimes impressive fraction of duds among bombs, I am not sure I trust a mine that supposedly deactivated itself on a timer. It may work 9 times out of ten. But it doesn't really make a big difference if it's the first, second or the tenth mine that gets you and rips off your leg.
- namibj 2y ago
  They deactivate by discharging their power supply, after which they are lacking the stored electrical energy needed to trigger the electrical detonator. It's not fool-proof, but a lot better than chemical/mechanical mechanisms that try to go inert.

mrguyorama 2y ago

>But I don't think any consideration is given to what happens to duds On the contrary. Duds causing UXO is the reason the US and most of NATO chooses not to build cluster munitions anymore, preferring instead pre-formed tungsten balls that are fired like a shotgun when the munition is over it's target. The dud rate was something like 2%, not that much but enough to make the US decide that leaving tens of thousands of UXOs in formerly enemy territory isn't okay. Russian cluster munitions being used in Ukraine right now have a much much higher dud rate, and that's before any bad storage or handling. For similar reasons, many NATO countries have given up types of landmines

ls612 2y ago
Modern US munitions have a mechanism that bricks the warhead after a certain amount of time from being fired (years). That way they retain use on the battlefield as a threat to enemy soldiers even if they don't properly detonate but will not pose a long term risk to civilians.
- justin66 2y ago
  Maybe something useful happens to disable the fuse? The hundreds of pounds of high explosive are still hundreds of pounds of high explosive, in a rusty container, no?
  - gmueckl 2y ago
    The really useful explosives don't go off because of rough handling and don't become unstable over time - both very desirable properties to prevent handling accidents. Ideally, the fuse is the only thing capable of setting it off. So hopefully, the explosive will just sit there in it's shell and stay inert. Most WW II duds are dangerous because of their fuses, not the bulk explosives, as I understand it.
  - 542354234235 2y ago
    While not universal, a lot of modern US munitions use polymer-bonded explosive (PBX) which is much less sensitive to accidental detonation from heat, shock, etc. so it is very unlikely to detonate from anything other than an intentional effort [1, 2]. They also use electro-mechanical fuzing systems, which are good but not great for safety, but are much better than mechanical fuzing [3]. All electric fuzing systems are the safest and are making their way into newer munitions [4]. [1] http://characterisationexplosiveweapons.org/studies/annex-e-mk82-aircraft-bombs/ http://characterisationexplosiveweapons.org/studies/annex-e-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer-bonded_explosive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer-bonded_explosive [3] https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2979&context=utk_gradthes https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2979... [4] https://sdquebec.ca/en/news/fmu-139-db-replaces-three-legacy-bomb-fuzes-improving-reliability-and-affordability https://sdquebec.ca/en/news/fmu-139-db-replaces-three-legacy...

duxup 2y ago

I’m not sure there’s much value in blowing up some poor farmer years after the fact, and the impact for either government is pretty much zero.