Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

2750 tonnes of ammonium nitrate has exploded in the port of Beirut, killing at least 70 (so far) and injuring thousands.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-53656220

Considering what a colossal amount of explosives that is I'm surprised that the devastation isn't even worse to be honest.

On top of all the issues down there...

Terrible

I wonder how they know so quickly how much ammonium nitrate was stored there?

Looks like they're investigating who/what is responsible still...

 RiTides wrote:
Terrible

I wonder how they know so quickly how much ammonium nitrate was stored there?

Looks like they're investigating who/what is responsible still...

According to the BBC thing I watched the finger is being pointed at the negligent city officials who didn't take the correct precautions.
So the powers that be knew exactly how much was there coz they were supposed to be safeguarding it. So I'm guessing many people knew exactly what was there and how much.

Very surreal.

Its apparently been sitting in that warehouse, adjacent to the port and city center for 6 years. Plenty of time to know how much.

Apparently there are reports (and footage) of fireworks going off in the vicinity (the video on the BBC news tonight was from a different angle (without the building in the way in the video on the webpage) and little sparkles are visible just prior to the explosion), and the inevitable happened. No attack, just part of the basic reason you don't store this stuff inside a city, especially not in that quantity.

2750 tons sounds a lot more reasonable than the "few tons" I'd heard reported earlier, that looked like a small tactical nuke going off, which matches perfectly with almost 3 kilotons of explosives.

It's surprising stuff like this doesn't happen more often. The crazy stuff that happens in ports, when cargoes or ships are abandoned or get mixed up in legal drama, can boggle the mind.

 Vaktathi wrote:
2750 tons sounds a lot more reasonable than the "few tons" I'd heard reported earlier, that looked like a small tactical nuke going off, which matches perfectly with almost 3 kilotons of explosives.

It's surprising stuff like this doesn't happen more often. The crazy stuff that happens in ports, when cargoes or ships are abandoned or get mixed up in legal drama, can boggle the mind.

Christ, that's bigger than the Galveston disaster. We have a new record holder for largest conventional explosion, I think.

Really, truly horrifying.

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
2750 tons sounds a lot more reasonable than the "few tons" I'd heard reported earlier, that looked like a small tactical nuke going off, which matches perfectly with almost 3 kilotons of explosives.

It's surprising stuff like this doesn't happen more often. The crazy stuff that happens in ports, when cargoes or ships are abandoned or get mixed up in legal drama, can boggle the mind.

Christ, that's bigger than the Galveston disaster. We have a new record holder for largest conventional explosion, I think.

I don't think so? Technically the Minor Scale and Misty Picture tests tipped just over 4 kilotons.

But it will easily scale somewhere in the same ballpark as the Halifax Explosion and Texas City disaster - two other devastating port city explosions.

Yeah, been seeing a fair bit of footage from different views. As close as some dude who looked like he was on the building next door to it, looking in at the smoke pouring out. I'm just hoping our countries can bring together some support to offer those who have been affected. And considering this was at a shipping wharf, the numbers given so far seem way too low.

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
2750 tons sounds a lot more reasonable than the "few tons" I'd heard reported earlier, that looked like a small tactical nuke going off, which matches perfectly with almost 3 kilotons of explosives.

It's surprising stuff like this doesn't happen more often. The crazy stuff that happens in ports, when cargoes or ships are abandoned or get mixed up in legal drama, can boggle the mind.

Christ, that's bigger than the Galveston disaster. We have a new record holder for largest conventional explosion, I think.

RAF fauld was 3.5-4k tonnes, and the Halifax was about 2.9k tonnes. Granted it's difficult to know the net explosive quantities Vs all up weights when it comes to cased munitions.

Edit: just found the neq estimate for fauld at 2kt. So yeah, if you discount minor scale, misty picture and British bang military tests, you could be right. If your paremeters were largest accidental explosion instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:
Its apparently been sitting in that warehouse, adjacent to the port and city center for 6 years. Plenty of time to know how much.

Apparently there are reports (and footage) of fireworks going off in the vicinity (the video on the BBC news tonight was from a different angle (without the building in the way in the video on the webpage) and little sparkles are visible just prior to the explosion), and the inevitable happened. No attack, just part of the basic reason you don't store this stuff inside a city, especially not in that quantity.

There's a bunch of smoke visible before the explosion, so a firework could have caused a fire. And the red smoke that shows with the explosion itself suggests that the AN hasn't detonated completely. In my limited knowledge I'd suggest that it deflagrated to a partial detonation, which in this case would be a small mercy.

First saw about this on a mate’s FB feed. Video started with a plume of white smoke, then kaboom

It was so surreal, I figured it was fake. But nope, all for real.

I mean, it’s a ludicrous explosion to witness. The death toll is horrendous, but looking at the scale of devastation, it could be been so much worse.

Really hoping this is down to human stupidity, and wasn’t set off deliberately, I can’t take much more this year.

Fortunately (?) it appears to be almost certain that this is a tragic accident, given the huge column of smoke it had obviously been well alight for quite a while before the final detonation. The fact that a nuclear-scale explosion is being treated as a “meanwhile” footnote in the news just shows how fethed up this year is.

Would be terrible anywhere it happened, but doubly so in a country that will struggle to have the resources to recover from it and really didn’t deserve another kicking.

 Jadenim wrote:
Fortunately (?) it appears to be almost certain that this is a tragic accident, given the huge column of smoke it had obviously been well alight for quite a while before the final detonation. The fact that a nuclear-scale explosion is being treated as a “meanwhile” footnote in the news just shows how fethed up this year is.

Would be terrible anywhere it happened, but doubly so in a country that will struggle to have the resources to recover from it and really didn’t deserve another kicking.

Its not really anywhere near a nuclear scale explosion. there may have been 3k tons of explosive material, but that doesnt mean the magnitude of the explosion is equivalent to the corresponding k-ton weight of TNT, especially if it has only deflagrated or deflagrated to detonation(which I would guess at due to the large blast wave). that is going to significantly reduce the actual magnitude of the explosion. until we get some definitive measurements, its difficult to say with any certainty, but to me you could achieve explosions that size or even larger with conventional 1000lb bomb or 2 which typically only contain 5-600lb of explosive.

Don't get me wrong, its one hell of a blast. the blast wave itself is particularly impressive.

Incorrect. A SMALL nuclear weapon in actual history was the 155 mm howitzer fired .072 kiloton tactical nuclear shell.

That's roughly 2 orders of magnitude smaller than this explosion, so even accounting for the differences in "whatever this was" vs "Trinitrotoluene" that means yeah, this was larger than a SMALL nuke.

Given that, someone probably just won apocalypse bingo, if they picked "nuclear scale explosion accident not involving russian attacks on the ukrainian stocks of weaponry", "the middle east, just blows up", or even "lebanon... Cause."

Yeah I didn't say that small nuclear explosions aren't possible. of course they are. (There's a reason those small nuclear munitions like that and the Davy Crockett never gained widespread use.) but in terms of magnitude for reporting purposes, this is just a very large conventional explosion. As I said, until we get an actual measure of its magnitude, it's difficult to say what it was with any accuracy.

But to counter your point that this is 3 orders of magnitude higher based on weight of explosive material, equivalence in weight does not equal equivalence in magnitude. Ammonium nitrate explosives (ANFO, ANS, ANAL*Snigger*) are a lot less powerful than your typical military or mining explosives (PE8, C4, TNT etc) this is why the roadside IEDs in afghan would consist of 100l palm oil containers packed with AN home made explosives, whereas you could achieve a similar explosion with a 155mm arty shell or a stick or 2 of plastic explosive. And again, how much of the material actually detonated, as opposed to deflagrated or simply burned, will also be a factor.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
until we get some definitive measurements, its difficult to say with any certainty, but to me you could achieve explosions that size or even larger with conventional 1000lb bomb or 2 which typically only contain 5-600lb of explosive.

Are we looking at the same explosion? A 1000lb bomb doesn't level city blocks on its own. Even the lower-level estimates I've seen are estimating an equivalent of 100 tonnes of TNT, with most seeming to land somewhere around 1kt.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
until we get some definitive measurements, its difficult to say with any certainty, but to me you could achieve explosions that size or even larger with conventional 1000lb bomb or 2 which typically only contain 5-600lb of explosive.

Are we looking at the same explosion? A 1000lb bomb doesn't level city blocks on its own. Even the lower-level estimates I've seen are estimating an equivalent of 100 tonnes of TNT, with most seeming to land somewhere around 1kt.

Did it level any? It was catastrophic but the videos make the destruction look a fair bit more all-encompassing than the aftermath photos. The building opposite the warehouse is still standing, albeit wrecked.

Edit: nb I think conversing about exactly how big the explosion was relative to military ordinance is really irrelevant and fairly tasteless at the moment.

nfe wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
until we get some definitive measurements, its difficult to say with any certainty, but to me you could achieve explosions that size or even larger with conventional 1000lb bomb or 2 which typically only contain 5-600lb of explosive.

Are we looking at the same explosion? A 1000lb bomb doesn't level city blocks on its own. Even the lower-level estimates I've seen are estimating an equivalent of 100 tonnes of TNT, with most seeming to land somewhere around 1kt.

Did it level any? It was catastrophic but the videos make the destruction look a fair bit more all-encompassing than the aftermath photos. The building opposite the warehouse is still standing, albeit wrecked.

I wouldn't say that building is standing. A portion of it is, but it looks like most of it is gone.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

nfe wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
until we get some definitive measurements, its difficult to say with any certainty, but to me you could achieve explosions that size or even larger with conventional 1000lb bomb or 2 which typically only contain 5-600lb of explosive.

Are we looking at the same explosion? A 1000lb bomb doesn't level city blocks on its own. Even the lower-level estimates I've seen are estimating an equivalent of 100 tonnes of TNT, with most seeming to land somewhere around 1kt.

Did it level any? It was catastrophic but the videos make the destruction look a fair bit more all-encompassing than the aftermath photos. The building opposite the warehouse is still standing, albeit wrecked.

I wouldn't say that building is standing. A portion of it is, but it looks like most of it is gone.

This. The grain elevator is essentially shorn in half with one half of it just gone. The crater left behind by the explosion is now part of the ocean, having blown away the pier and land beneath the warehouse.

No 1000lb bomb is going to deliver an explosion like that, they're not even remotely the same scale. You can watch MOAB drops that very clearly are orders of magnitude less impressive than the Beirut explosion.

Looking at the video for the Crockett tactical mini nuke however, looks more appropriate.

In any case, does it really matter? The scale of the explosion relative to military ordinance is really irrelevant and a fairly tasteless conversation. I shouldn't have contributed myself.

It does look like the grain elevator protected a bunch of buildings behind it by taking the brunt of the blast.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It does look like the grain elevator protected a bunch of buildings behind it by taking the brunt of the blast.

I wonder if that thing was full or not and if that might have contributed to its ability to shield and withstand the blast somewhat.

I've read in a fairly trustworthy Dutch newspaper that the ammonium nitrate was impounded by the ministry of justice and stocked there on their orders in 2013. The harbour director and various of his officials have apparently been trying in vain to get it removed due to the risk involved for 6(!) years...

...

But it's the harbour workers who are now being put under house arrest. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it's to find out if there was malice and intent involved.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It does look like the grain elevator protected a bunch of buildings behind it by taking the brunt of the blast.

I wonder if that thing was full or not and if that might have contributed to its ability to shield and withstand the blast somewhat.

From what I've seen it held 15k tonnes of grain, 85% of Lebanon's reserve and the food situation was already somewhat strained before this.

The country is a hotbed of problems and it would be shocking if they didn't suspect foul play as a potential aspect. If that happened in almost any country there would be investigations and staff/workers etc... would certainly be one of the first groups under investigation.

 Vaktathi wrote:
No 1000lb bomb is going to deliver an explosion like that, they're not even remotely the same scale. You can watch MOAB drops that very clearly are orders of magnitude less impressive than the Beirut explosion.

Looking at the video for the Crockett tactical mini nuke however, looks more appropriate.

Just seen a video from a different angle, it looks a lot bigger than the one I initially saw. However, it still only seems like a partial reaction to me, due to the red smoke. Which, as I said, is a small mercy.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
The country is a hotbed of problems and it would be shocking if they didn't suspect foul play as a potential aspect. If that happened in almost any country there would be investigations and staff/workers etc... would certainly be one of the first groups under investigation.

The dock is apparently known as Ali babas cave of 40 thieves, so I'd be willing to bet a combination of corruption and negligence played a part in it sitting there for 7 years.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
No 1000lb bomb is going to deliver an explosion like that, they're not even remotely the same scale. You can watch MOAB drops that very clearly are orders of magnitude less impressive than the Beirut explosion.

Looking at the video for the Crockett tactical mini nuke however, looks more appropriate.

An impression explosion does not necessarily equate to a powerful explosion.

Regardless, the idea that the detonation and results were anything even within an order of magnitude of what a 1000lb bomb would deliver is woefully inaccurate. A 1000lb bomb exploding on land doesn't throw entire boats out of the water, or do this kind of damage.

nfe wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
until we get some definitive measurements, its difficult to say with any certainty, but to me you could achieve explosions that size or even larger with conventional 1000lb bomb or 2 which typically only contain 5-600lb of explosive.

Are we looking at the same explosion? A 1000lb bomb doesn't level city blocks on its own. Even the lower-level estimates I've seen are estimating an equivalent of 100 tonnes of TNT, with most seeming to land somewhere around 1kt.

Did it level any? It was catastrophic but the videos make the destruction look a fair bit more all-encompassing than the aftermath photos. The building opposite the warehouse is still standing, albeit wrecked.

Edit: nb I think conversing about exactly how big the explosion was relative to military ordinance is really irrelevant and fairly tasteless at the moment.

If 300,000 are now homeless like news are reporting that's quite a few buildings unlivable.