Dynasafe’s Charlie Diggs on safely destroying dangerous munitions

Charlie Diggs has spent his career eliminating the hazardous remnants of conflict — unused, unstable, aging, and surplus munitions. Now CEO of Dynasafe, a company dedicated to safely neutralizing and destroying everything from chemical weapons to underwater ordnance, Diggs leads a global effort spanning demilitarization, robotics, AI-driven identification, and advanced safety engineering.

In this conversation with Interesting Engineering, he breaks down what’s changing in modern conflict, what engineers often get wrong about explosives work, and how emerging technologies are reshaping the field.

Interesting Engineering: Dynasafe is operating at the center of a very urgent global conversation, namely conflict, unexploded ordnance, and the long-term environmental legacy of munitions. What makes this work especially critical right now?

Charlies Diggs: Weapons are fundamentally changing. On one hand, we’re seeing far more advanced “smart” weapons that pose unique challenges for safely destroying them.

On the other hand, we’re seeing very primitive weapons deployed in new ways. Look at the war in Ukraine, where basic grenades and similar devices are being strapped to drones and flown directly into targets.

The good news is that destroying energetics ultimately comes down to the same basic principles. Recycling steps may change, but the core destruction work is consistent. What is changing is the scale of the backlog: the world still has enormous quantities of legacy munitions.

We’ve eliminated the declared stockpile of chemical weapons globally, driven by treaty deadlines, with the US the last to complete that work. However, we still have non-stockpile weapons, World War I–era material, and even older munitions still being pulled from the soil.

And we have barely begun addressing the huge quantities dumped at sea, as we’re now seeing in the Baltic. In short, we’re nowhere near finished.

IE: You’ve gone from destroying chemical weapons for the US Army to now leading Dynasafe. Was there a defining moment early in your career that set you on the path toward making hazardous materials and conflict zones safer?

Yes. When I left the military and began destroying weapons for the US Army as a contractor, I was very focused on my immediate community. I loved the work and believed strongly in making my local area safer.

Eventually, I was put in charge of destroying weapons that the main destruction machines couldn’t handle, such as overpacked, unstable items. When those became too dangerous, we went looking for solutions and found Dynasafe. I became their customer, installed their equipment, ran their plant, and worked closely with their team.

That’s when I had my “aha” moment: this isn’t just a local issue. It’s a global problem. That realization changed everything. I knew I wanted to work on this at a global scale and that it would be my life’s work.

I’ve been on that mission ever since.

IE: What do engineers most often misunderstand about the realities of safely neutralising weapons and explosives, whether technically, operationally, or environmentally?

A lot of new engineers (or people hearing about our work) immediately think, “That sounds cool, I want to blow stuff up.” But if we’re doing our jobs correctly, nothing spectacular is happening at all. It’s actually quite boring, and that’s exactly how it should be. Our equipment is designed to handle explosions if they occur, but the goal is not to create them.

Engineers also need to understand that environmental responsibility is just as important as neutralization. It’s not enough to simply destroy a weapon. If you neutralize a chemical weapon but leave behind material that’s still hazardous to a child who might touch it, you’ve failed.

You have to think from start to finish: the air coming out of the stack should be cleaner than the air you’re breathing, and the scrap metal should be safe enough that your own children could play with it.

And you must consider where the munition is coming from, whether out of the ground, out of the ocean, pristine in packaging, or sitting for 70 years in a bunker. Every source condition changes the engineering approach. So the mindset must be holistic, not “let’s blow things up.”

IE: Technologies like automation, robotics, sensors, and AI are rapidly evolving. Which innovations are actually reshaping explosive ordnance disposal and demilitarisation work in a meaningful way, and where does the hype still exceed reality?

We already use a lot of automation and robotics across our systems, and we are now integrating AI, but the area where AI truly shines is identification.

There are countless types of munitions worldwide with different markings, dimensions, and classifications. Some clients know exactly what they have. But many don’t: war zones, dump sites, old battlefields, and underwater recoveries all yield heavily corroded, rusted, or unmarked items.

AI helps analyze dimensions, remaining markings, and shape characteristics, compare them to known libraries, and return a probability score for what the item is. That informs how we destroy it. It also provides a critical safety layer, for example, ensuring a conventional-only system doesn’t accidentally accept a chemical munition.

As we move deeper into underwater recovery, with heavy corrosion and sea life growth, AI’s ability to assist with classification becomes even more essential. That’s where we’re putting significant development effort.

IE: Your work sits at the intersection of safety, environmental responsibility, and geopolitics. From your perspective, where does an engineer’s responsibility begin and end when designing systems involving dangerous or destructive technologies?

Your responsibility begins at the very first point where the munition exists (whether it’s in a bunker, buried in soil, or underwater). It extends through every moment a human being might have to touch it. The goal is always to minimize human interaction and human risk.

Equipment can be replaced; people can’t. Sometimes the solution is simple, like adding a blast wall. Sometimes it’s complex, like deploying a rover to retrieve items. But the guiding principle is constant: reduce exposure.

You must also design systems that fully neutralize chemicals and agents, not simply relocate the hazard by creating mountains of secondary waste. Environmental regulations are only the minimum standard. You have to exceed them.

And finally, you must design with future maintenance and operation in mind. Someone has to run this equipment, and someone has to repair it. Systems should prevent operator mistakes without unnecessarily limiting them. It’s a balance.

We’ve delivered nearly 50 plants over 35 years. Each one improves on the last. You’ll make mistakes and fix them, but one thing is non-negotiable: no one gets hurt.

IE: Looking back to your career history, what habits or philosophies have served you best, and what hard-won lessons would you want young engineers to learn earlier?

The first thing I tell anyone I mentor is: think. Block out 30 minutes every day to think, no emails, no tasks, no distractions. Many of us work hard all day checking items off lists, but at the end of the day, did any of it matter? Thinking time is where meaningful improvements and breakthroughs happen.

Second: don’t worry about job security. If you automate your entire job, I’m not letting you go; I’m giving you more to optimize. Good people who make themselves more valuable never need to fear replacement. Don’t hoard information; replace yourself constantly.

Third: don’t chase the “best” assignments. Whatever work you’re given, do it at a professional level. People will notice. If you consistently operate at that level, you will eventually get any assignment you want. Excellence is always visible.

IE: When you think about the long-term impact of Dynasafe’s work, what legacy do you hope to leave, both for the company and for the global communities affected by munitions and conflict?

Personally, my legacy goal is simple: I want every chemical weapon on this planet destroyed before I die. I started pursuing that mission at 23, and I’ve spent almost half my life working toward it. Chemical weapons have no place in warfare, and eliminating them is a legacy worth dedicating a life to.

For Dynasafe, there is one rule we live by: we destroy weapons; we do not make them. We could make far more money manufacturing weapons, and I have nothing against the companies that do, but that is not who we are. [Dynasafe also] turns down any acquisition opportunity that involves weapons manufacturing.

We want to be a shield, not a spear. Our legacy is to make the world safer for this generation and the next. A lot of companies say that; we mean it, and we live by it.

That’s the entire mission.