7 ms·
> Lebanon's prime minister said an investigation would focus on an estimated 2,750 metric tons of the explosive ammonium nitrate stored at a warehouse. > A sec
by DenisM 6y ago
> Lebanon's prime minister said an investigation would focus on an estimated 2,750 metric tons of the explosive ammonium nitrate stored at a warehouse.
> A security source said the explosive power of the stored ammonium nitrate was equivalent to at least 1,200 tonnes of TNT
So we are basically looking at a 1kt nuke blast (minus the heat and fallout). Hiroshima nuke, for scale, was at 13–18kt.
- victoro0 6y agoWell, yes, though a nuke would not detonate at ground level which would make it more destructive for most purposes (apart from bunker destruction). Plus 1kt is very very small for a nuke.
- pedalpete 6y agoIs there any reason a nuke could not detonate at ground level? Or are you saying to inflict the most damage, you "would not/should not" detonate a nuke at ground level.
- nkrisc 6y agoThey would not detonate at ground level to maximize destructive potential. To contrast, the US actually has different bombs that penetrate into the ground before detonating in order to effectively destroy buried bunkers. For example, I believe the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki detonated at about 500m above the ground.
- nradov 6y agoSome nuclear bombs were specifically designed to detonate at ground level. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laydown_delivery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laydown_delivery
- catalogia 6y agoAlso these "backpack bombs": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Muni... > It was also intended that the munition could be used against targets in coastal and near-coastal locations. One person carrying the weapon package would parachute from an aircraft and place the device in a harbor or other strategic location that was accessible from the sea. Another parachutist without a weapon package would follow the first to provide support as needed. The two-man team would place the weapon package in the target location, set the timer, and swim out into the ocean, where they would be retrieved by a submarine or a high-speed surface water craft.
- net2net2net 6y agoThe logic is that at a certain point (altitude wise) you're just wasting energy by blowing a bigger hole in the ground, rather than detonating slightly higher and getting more bang for your buck (widespread target destruction).
- PaulHoule 6y agoFor a bomb that size the kill radius from prompt neutrons is several times that of the blast. Buildings across the street were intact even though we saw bits of their facades coming off as the blast it. Probably most people across the street survived but probably wouldn't if it was a nuke. If it were a nuke it would have gotten bright very quickly, but it quickly would be obscured by clouds and dust.
- pavlov 6y agoAnd that's minuscule compared to the active arsenal held by United States and Russia. Their weapons are in the 400-1200kt range, and both nations have thousands of them. Imagine several million of the Beirut explosions happening simultaneously in densely populated cities, and look at the men who hold the launch codes for these weapons. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists maintains a "Doomsday Clock" which is currently closer than ever to midnight — and they started in 1947.
- walrus01 6y agoI thought a number of "modern" MIRV warheads were intentionally designed smaller in the 50 to 125 kiloton class.
- jabl 6y agoThe W76 used by the US and UK submarines is 90-100 kT. Most other US warheads are 300-475 kT (W78, W87, W88). There's apparently a small number of 5-7 kT "W76 mod 2" warheads as well. Russian warheads tend to be bigger, around 500-1000 kT, presumably to compensate for poorer accuracy.
- caf 6y agoIn a cosmic coincidence, today (August 6) is in fact Hiroshima day.