5 ms·

There are some answers for this: https://www.axios.com/beirut-ammonium-nitrate-explained-61a00b6e-61e4-4f90-8880-a5f946f81060.html https://www.axios.com/beirut-

There are some answers for this: https://www.axios.com/beirut-ammonium-nitrate-explained-61a00b6e-61e4-4f90-8880-a5f946f81060.html https://www.axios.com/beirut-ammonium-nitrate-explained-61a0... Short Summary: - Russian ship with engine trouble made emergency stop years ago. - Ship was carrying all of that ammonium nitrate with bad papers (probably illegal transport). - Ship wasn't allowed to leave (since they're probably moving explosive material illegally). - Eventually crew was let go and Beirut stored the ammonium nitrate in the warehouse at the dock. - People at the dock begged for it to be moved saying that it would 'blow up all of Beirut'. - Government probably didn't know what to do with it.

rorykoehler 6y ago
>Government probably didn't know what to do with it. Move it to somewhere remote? Anywhere but in Beirut would have been better.
- Consultant32452 6y ago
  This is government, you can't just "move it somewhere". You have to have a budget, get permitting, put out an rfq for the moving and storing of explosive materials, deal with lawsuits around the contact and the nimbys who don't want explosives stored near them. Years doesn't surprise me at all, and that's if someone was actually motivated.
  - WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
    So this means you can blow up another country by just sending a ship full of explosives to their dock with invalid papers... perfection.
    - _underfl0w_ 6y ago
      Oh please nobody tell (just going alphabetically) America, China, or Russia this. Deniability is far too plausible.
  - lostlogin 6y ago
    > This is government It actually isn’t. This sort of thing isn’t particularly common and people are usually prevented from setting these situations up by following (however grudgingly) the rules. This happened where the government was dysfunctional, corrupt, bankrupt and the country was under huge strain.
    - Consultant32452 6y ago
      How many governments do you think have a ready-made safe and secured spot in waiting to store thousands of tons of explosives? Some very wealthy nations might, but I suspect very few could have handled this much better.
      - lostlogin 6y ago
        And yet explosions this large are rare. Taking the material off the owner is a last resort. Regulation can prevent the problem long before it gets to the stage it got to in Lebanon. Assuming I’m wrong, why are there not more explosions?
        lmm 6y ago
        This stuff sat there without exploding for seven years, and was only set off because of two unfortunate coincidences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enschede_fireworks_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enschede_fireworks_disaster happened in a western country with a reputable company that followed the regulations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Richard_Montgomery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Richard_Montgomery is still sitting in prime position to destroy London's financial district one day, with no-one taking responsibility for clearing it up.
        lostlogin 6y ago
        In the first example of exploding fireworks, the company was not following regulations, as noted in your link. The fireworks were stored illegally and people went to prison as a result of their behaviour. The second is bad, but isn’t the same the same as it’s there by accident and the remedy is far from clear. Depending on who you believe, the munitions are either safe now, or can’t be touched. Quite how that gets managed I don’t know. The link also says this about the last time they tried to manage a sunken munitions ship: “One of the reasons that the explosives have not been removed was the unfortunate outcome of a similar operation in July 1967, to neutralize the contents of SS Kielce, a ship of Polish origin, sunk in 1946, off Folkestone in the English Channel. During preliminary work, Kielce exploded with a force equivalent to an earthquake measuring 4.5 on the Richter scale, digging a 20-foot-deep (6 m) crater in the seabed and bringing "panic and chaos" to Folkestone, although there were no injuries.[5] Kielce was at least 3 or 4 miles (4.8 or 6.4 km) from land, sunk in deeper water than Richard Montgomery, and had "just a fraction" of the load of explosives”
  - lliamander 6y ago
    I agree with your assessment of why moving the explosives was so difficult, but I would quibble with the use of "nimby" in this context. I think most anyone has a legitimate concern for not wanting that in their vicinity.
- azernik 6y ago
  That's where the incompetence comes in. When the crew was allowed to leave and the explosives were brought onshore, the judge ordered the government to either sell it off or move it to a more permanent storage facility; the government just never got around to it.
pantalaimon 6y ago
If they seized it, couldn’t they just have sold it to get rid of it?
- onetimemanytime 6y ago
  looking back yes. But IIRC, bankruptcy was declared and this was someone's property. Obviously pretty stupid but everyone must have hoped it will solve itself. They could have sold it and held the money in an account, it's not like they were the crown jewels of the British Royal family. $12 Billion negligence, plus the dead and wounded.
CountSessine 6y ago
The captain of the ship had some interesting things to say about the whole debacle. - The ship had to dock in Beirut because they found out they were short of the passage fee for the Suez Canal. - They were going to raise more money to get through the canal by taking on a job transporting machinery from Beirut along with the explosives - The ship would have been overburdened by the machinery and the explosives, so they couldn't pass an inspection and couldn't leave. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-53683082 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-53683082
kazinator 6y ago
> Government probably didn't know what to do with it Wikipedia: "[ammonium nitrate] is predominantly used in agriculture as a high-nitrogen fertilizer". Doh?

rorykoehler 6y ago

>Government probably didn't know what to do with it. Move it to somewhere remote? Anywhere but in Beirut would have been better.

Consultant32452 6y ago
This is government, you can't just "move it somewhere". You have to have a budget, get permitting, put out an rfq for the moving and storing of explosive materials, deal with lawsuits around the contact and the nimbys who don't want explosives stored near them. Years doesn't surprise me at all, and that's if someone was actually motivated.
- WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
  So this means you can blow up another country by just sending a ship full of explosives to their dock with invalid papers... perfection.
  - _underfl0w_ 6y ago
    Oh please nobody tell (just going alphabetically) America, China, or Russia this. Deniability is far too plausible.
- lostlogin 6y ago
  > This is government It actually isn’t. This sort of thing isn’t particularly common and people are usually prevented from setting these situations up by following (however grudgingly) the rules. This happened where the government was dysfunctional, corrupt, bankrupt and the country was under huge strain.
  - Consultant32452 6y ago
    How many governments do you think have a ready-made safe and secured spot in waiting to store thousands of tons of explosives? Some very wealthy nations might, but I suspect very few could have handled this much better.
    - lostlogin 6y ago
      And yet explosions this large are rare. Taking the material off the owner is a last resort. Regulation can prevent the problem long before it gets to the stage it got to in Lebanon. Assuming I’m wrong, why are there not more explosions?
      - lmm 6y ago
        This stuff sat there without exploding for seven years, and was only set off because of two unfortunate coincidences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enschede_fireworks_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enschede_fireworks_disaster happened in a western country with a reputable company that followed the regulations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Richard_Montgomery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Richard_Montgomery is still sitting in prime position to destroy London's financial district one day, with no-one taking responsibility for clearing it up.
        lostlogin 6y ago
        In the first example of exploding fireworks, the company was not following regulations, as noted in your link. The fireworks were stored illegally and people went to prison as a result of their behaviour. The second is bad, but isn’t the same the same as it’s there by accident and the remedy is far from clear. Depending on who you believe, the munitions are either safe now, or can’t be touched. Quite how that gets managed I don’t know. The link also says this about the last time they tried to manage a sunken munitions ship: “One of the reasons that the explosives have not been removed was the unfortunate outcome of a similar operation in July 1967, to neutralize the contents of SS Kielce, a ship of Polish origin, sunk in 1946, off Folkestone in the English Channel. During preliminary work, Kielce exploded with a force equivalent to an earthquake measuring 4.5 on the Richter scale, digging a 20-foot-deep (6 m) crater in the seabed and bringing "panic and chaos" to Folkestone, although there were no injuries.[5] Kielce was at least 3 or 4 miles (4.8 or 6.4 km) from land, sunk in deeper water than Richard Montgomery, and had "just a fraction" of the load of explosives”
- lliamander 6y ago
  I agree with your assessment of why moving the explosives was so difficult, but I would quibble with the use of "nimby" in this context. I think most anyone has a legitimate concern for not wanting that in their vicinity.
azernik 6y ago
That's where the incompetence comes in. When the crew was allowed to leave and the explosives were brought onshore, the judge ordered the government to either sell it off or move it to a more permanent storage facility; the government just never got around to it.

pantalaimon 6y ago

If they seized it, couldn’t they just have sold it to get rid of it?

onetimemanytime 6y ago
looking back yes. But IIRC, bankruptcy was declared and this was someone's property. Obviously pretty stupid but everyone must have hoped it will solve itself. They could have sold it and held the money in an account, it's not like they were the crown jewels of the British Royal family. $12 Billion negligence, plus the dead and wounded.

CountSessine 6y ago

The captain of the ship had some interesting things to say about the whole debacle. - The ship had to dock in Beirut because they found out they were short of the passage fee for the Suez Canal. - They were going to raise more money to get through the canal by taking on a job transporting machinery from Beirut along with the explosives - The ship would have been overburdened by the machinery and the explosives, so they couldn't pass an inspection and couldn't leave. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-53683082 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-53683082

kazinator 6y ago

> Government probably didn't know what to do with it Wikipedia: "[ammonium nitrate] is predominantly used in agriculture as a high-nitrogen fertilizer". Doh?