23 ms·

It's probably a fertiliser shipment, but if it were to explode while unloading the intended use does not matter much. If you've seen some footage from the Beiru

It's probably a fertiliser shipment, but if it were to explode while unloading the intended use does not matter much. If you've seen some footage from the Beirut port explosion in 2020, calling something 7 times as large a 'megabomb' is not inappropriate.

ErikBjare 2y ago
Experts have said in Swedish media that no such risk exists due to how it's packed/stored, unless someone intentionally mixes it with "organics" or stores it with fireworks (as in Beirut).
- neuroelectron 2y ago
  Are you saying Beirut was intentional?
  - petre 2y ago
    Who cares, it's quite enough to reason to refuse a ship to dock in port. The Beirut ship also had a Russian owner. The AN was bound to Mozambique to be used for explosives.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago
  Organics such as fuel oil, which the ship likely has on board and might also refuel. If it accidentally or "accidentally" leaks into the AN, you get ANFO, "a widely used bulk industrial high explosive". If Russia wants to nuke an European port city without using an actual nuke and while being able to at least leave some doubt whether it may have just been an accident, this certainly looks like a plausible way.
- sorokod 2y ago
  Looks like some experts in Sweden disagreed, Ruby was denied entry to Gothenburg.
gmuslera 2y ago
There are or were this kind of fertilizer shipments from other dates or countries that weren’t cataloged as megabombs? Maybe even bigger. A weapon is a weapon no matter who holds it. If coming from other sources, maybe in even bigger amounts, it is seen as something normal, then we are not talking about the ship.
- water-data-dude 2y ago
  I think the fact that the ship is damaged, making the fertilizer much more likely to explode, is why they’re calling it a megabomb. Circumstances have made the cargo more hazardous, and pushed the “explosive substance” part of its dual nature to the front of everyone’s minds

ErikBjare 2y ago

Experts have said in Swedish media that no such risk exists due to how it's packed/stored, unless someone intentionally mixes it with "organics" or stores it with fireworks (as in Beirut).

neuroelectron 2y ago
Are you saying Beirut was intentional?
- petre 2y ago
  Who cares, it's quite enough to reason to refuse a ship to dock in port. The Beirut ship also had a Russian owner. The AN was bound to Mozambique to be used for explosives.
tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago
Organics such as fuel oil, which the ship likely has on board and might also refuel. If it accidentally or "accidentally" leaks into the AN, you get ANFO, "a widely used bulk industrial high explosive". If Russia wants to nuke an European port city without using an actual nuke and while being able to at least leave some doubt whether it may have just been an accident, this certainly looks like a plausible way.
sorokod 2y ago
Looks like some experts in Sweden disagreed, Ruby was denied entry to Gothenburg.

gmuslera 2y ago

There are or were this kind of fertilizer shipments from other dates or countries that weren’t cataloged as megabombs? Maybe even bigger. A weapon is a weapon no matter who holds it. If coming from other sources, maybe in even bigger amounts, it is seen as something normal, then we are not talking about the ship.

water-data-dude 2y ago
I think the fact that the ship is damaged, making the fertilizer much more likely to explode, is why they’re calling it a megabomb. Circumstances have made the cargo more hazardous, and pushed the “explosive substance” part of its dual nature to the front of everyone’s minds