These findings are crucial because the three substances form the backbone of modern military technology. AP is widely used as an oxidizer in rocket propellants, while RDX and HMX are core components in high-performance explosives. Their global importance makes any associated risk not only technical, but also strategic.
Risks Go Beyond Detonation
Public perception often links explosive materials solely with blast hazards. However, this study demonstrates that the most critical risks emerge throughout the entire lifecycle—from production and storage to transportation and disposal.
The researchers identified three primary risk categories:
- Industrial process risk: particularly high in RDX production due to temperature sensitivity
- Environmental risk: especially significant for AP, which can contaminate groundwater
- Strategic risk: most evident in HMX due to production interdependence and limited global supply
“Energetic chemical risk is not a single hazard. It is a connected system linking safety, environment, and supply chain resilience,” the authors note.
Method: Combining Scientific Evidence and Risk Modeling
Instead of conducting laboratory experiments, the study synthesizes scientific literature, government reports, and industrial safety data published between 2000 and 2024.
The team then developed a structured risk matrix that evaluates:
- Likelihood of occurrence
- Severity of impact
- Environmental persistence
- Strategic importance in supply chains
This approach allows direct comparison across chemicals and across different stages of the supply chain.
Key Findings: Each Chemical Carries Distinct Risks
A New Framework: The Coupled Risk Triangle
One of the study’s major contributions is the introduction of the “Coupled Risk Triangle Model.”
This model explains that energetic chemical risks are shaped by three interconnected dimensions:
- Reactive instability
- Environmental persistence
- Strategic supply concentration
A disruption in one dimension can cascade into others. For example, a factory accident may lead to environmental contamination and disrupt national defense supply chains at the same time.
Real-World Implications
From Compliance to Resilience
The researchers emphasize that traditional safety compliance is no longer sufficient. Instead, a resilience-based approach is needed.
Recommended strategies include:
- Diversifying raw material sources
- Improving process control technologies
- Implementing long-term environmental monitoring
- Strengthening domestic production capabilities
- Integrating defense and environmental policies
“Energetic materials are not only enablers of defense capability, but also sources of systemic risk that require integrated governance,” the authors conclude.
Author Profiles
- Sulfi Indriani – Researcher in Defense Industry Studies, Republic of Indonesia Defense University, specializing in industrial risk management
- Sri Yanto – Academic in defense technology
- I Nengah Putra – Researcher in industrial systems and defense engineering
- Firdah Dipi Juni Kurniawati – Specialist in process safety and hazardous materials
All authors are affiliated with the Faculty of Defense Engineering and Technology, Republic of Indonesia Defense University.
0 Komentar