On Jun 22, 2008, at 11:21 AM, Gautam John wrote:
"We no longer accept the term thermobaric [for the AGM-114N] as there is no internationally agreed definition," said an MoD spokesman. "We call it an enhanced blast weapon."
Technically, they have something of a point, as there are a couple different kinds of explosive systems to which this name is sometimes applied but with different properties and there does seem to be some improper conflation of the two.
Most of the really nasty (side-)effects attributed to thermobaric weapons, outside of the usual damage explosives cause, are from the class of organic Fuel-Air Explosive (FAE) systems developed during the Cold War. The opponents of the AGM-114N are using peak values and models from these types of systems as the core elements of their arguments.
However, the AGM-114N is a metal-augmented explosive, a technology that has been in use since at least WW2. The main function of the metal augmentation is to change the overpressure pulse shape so that naturally blast resistant construction (e.g. heavy masonry building or large steel ship) is more likely to suffer extended structural failure for a given charge mass. The mechanism by which it alters the pulse characteristics are similar to the pure FAE systems (same basic principles) but the construction is different because it is modifying the main charge rather than *being* the main charge.
The military alternative is to just use bigger explosive charges less efficient for the task, which will have a larger collateral damage footprint. If I was on the receiving end, I'm not sure whether I would care if I was killed by a large inefficient explosive or a small efficient one, though my neighbors might.
J. Andrew Rogers
