Massive blast in Beirut
- Thread starter VincentHanna
- Start date
Yeah I was just saying possibly that is what remains of it - but it doesn't appear to be in the crater as the second overhead image possibly suggested.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 17,616
- Location
- Bristol
I did a very slow edit to say it looks like I'm wrong anyway, other pics show the ship to have been moved by the blast by the looks of things.
https://www.reddit.com/r/lebanon/comments/i4533m/the_crater_of_the_port_of_beirut/
https://www.reddit.com/r/lebanon/comments/i44fac/aftermath_of_explosion_crater_estimated_at_1000/
The boat appears to be sitting on the dock where some of the warehouses were before, video on the BBC front page at the top shows it as it pans out.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news
Edit: Post above has a better shot of it.
Also shows the protection the grain silo offered to the buildings to the rear of it compared to those directly in it's path.
holy crap you're right! I thought that smudge was the outline of a sunken ship but it's been blown clear out of the water!
That boat will be a few thousand tons.
I'm not sure that title is right. He clearly gets struck on the head by the ceiling/lighting debris. Hope he's ok.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,512
Yeah, but they also have a fair few nuclear weapons stored only a few hundred yards from my house. If any of those go bang, the Thames Valley is going to be somewhat deeper.... Hopefully I'll be on another site when it does, as the computer game they make of it will probably be quite awesome!
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,683
I guess it puts in perspective the destructive power of a nuclear bomb
I'm surprised they are putting it that big - though it did register a fair amount on the Richter scale.
don't forget that a nuclear bomb is designed to sky blast above the target to maximise the blast radius and reduce any shielding at ground level. This explosion (note I don't think it was a bomb) went off at ground level and still did crazy damage
edited for clarity lest people think I'm in on the CT bandwagon.
edited for clarity lest people think I'm in on the CT bandwagon.
Last edited:
Each site, individual building or storage area will have a licence. Strict limits will be in place governing the type and quantity of explosives that can be stored based on location, building construction etc.
I'm surprised if they put the force that high - Tianjin (which was about 1/3rd the amount of ammonium nitrate) was ~336 ton of TNT equivalent producing 21.9 ton TNT equivalent main blast and 2.9mag quake - compared to 3.3mag quake in this one (which is around 2.5x stronger seismically).
Generally the force from the main blast of previous explosions around this scale has been in the 10s of tons of TNT equivalent.
The TNT equivalent range will be based on the relative effectiveness for AN and possibly a proportion of ANFO so a range from 0.4ish to 0.7ish. Quake strength isn't a good guide to explosive force as it relies to much on geology to be meaningfull.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,148
Less than 1% of current nukes destructive ability.
In fairness he did say tactical not strategic. Tactical are the mini ones that were being developed so commanders in the field could fire them from tanks and artillery. They were the ones banned by the non-profileration treaty until a certain president decided to pull out of it. The previous presidents agreed it might not be wise to place the nuke decision further down the line of command and the current ones have overruled this. Great...
To be fair, it's pointless pretending that international law means anything to nuclear powers, any agreement is only as strong as the inequality the parties involved.