Talk:Sub-kiloton blasts in Donetsk

From A Closer Look On Syria
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Nukes in Lugansk airport?

The "English Russia" story is likely making fun of the ridiculous claims the other day of the Putschist "Defense Minister" about "two tactical nukes" Russia had used at Lugansk airport. The sites you visit, Petri... *shakeshead* :oD --CE (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not know if "tim" is making fun or has simply mixed up the two stories. I discussed the Lugansk airport claims here on Facebook:
Some translation and more sources there. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


The junta attacking Crimea is really a question of if the US wants a war with Russia. Because NATO is the military arm of the US that controls the EU and as Ukraine signed away its sovereignty to the EU, via the association agreement, we know that the US has defacto military control of the Ukraine. Likewise, any military action that occurs in the Ukraine must be understood as being ordered by the US and not to confuse any such military action with the initiative of a rogue Nazis. This is the same reason that Iran stated that if any aggression by Israel occurred, Iran would target and destroy any and all US military assets in the region.
Nevertheless, the next day, before the signatures were dry on the memorandum, a ballistic missiles exploded in Donetsk. The blasts happened when the Russian humanitarian aid convoy was unloading elsewhere in the city. What caught my attention was that the explosion looked a lot like a low yield tactical nuke, of the Davy Crockett variety (a US mini nuke that was developed in the 50's). Today, with more than half a century of advancements in nuclear weapons technology, you can likely dial the tonnage from 1 to whatever kilotons you need to destroy a target.
The bomb damage assessment team estimated the explosive power of the devastation was in the range of 3 kilotons. An immediate cover story was released stating that ammunition was being stored there. However, I am not buying that story. Would you store your ammunition in a factory that is the favorite target of the junta and in range of their artillery fire? No of course not. Nor would anyone with an IQ above the phylum of platyhelminthes. Most would store ammunition out of harms way, in the middle of no where, far away from cities, and most especially factories. Moreover, the crazed Nazi have a proven track record of only being able to incinerate sunflower fields and cabbage patches with the same weapon.
we reasonably speculate that the factory was not being used as an ammunition depot, then we must conclude that the device had to be nuclear. There is no other conclusion that can be drawn. Because there is no such thing as a tactical or even a strategic ballistic missile with a 3 thousand ton delivery capacity. This is just common sense. A 400 foot frigate is about 3,000 tons.
Thus, the question becomes, why would the NAF want to minimize the importance of such an attack, only hours after signing the memorandum? Well, if the US strongly expressed its unwillingness to allow the junta army to be destroyed by the NAF, and threatened to use nuclear weapons, this answers a lot of seemingly contradictory events; like why the sudden peace accords when the NAF was about to win, why Novorossia is now willing to negotiate with the junta, and why Poroshenko is showing us his sweeter side for the first time since taking office!
To me the question of attacking Crimea seems unlikely as the Donbas will do just fine in sparking WWIII. I always get nervous when the political narrative changes so drastically. It makes me feel as if I am in the eye of the storm.
This is obviously wrong, or from a dark humor section. Radiation can be easily detected by an amateur with a below $50 kit; nobody in his sane mind would bother wasting time fitting small US nuc charge onto a Scarab missile; Ukr does not have nucs; rebels got to have ammunition storages somewhere in Donetsk, and there is nothing surprising that a 120 km range missile can hit it; it was done after the second treaty was signed and had no 'hard diplomacy' value; for NATO, there will be zero to gain and a lot to loose. Certainly firing a Scarab after second disengagement treaty into an ammo storage does not attest to high moral values and partner reliability of the Ukr detachment responsible. But things are still VERY far from nucs even hypothetically considered --Resup (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


Claims of Israeli neutron bomb dropped on Sana. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


(Gordon Duff with Jeff Smith, Nuclear Physicist and former IAEA inspector)
Even the cheap video camera picked up the proton bombardment from a neutron bomb, as seen in the scintillation after the initial fireball. We expect Mossad and ADL trolls to be driven crazy by this one. No one watching this video can have a second’s doubt that they are seeing an Israeli neutron bomb. Israel is the only nation that openly deploys neutron bombs, there is no one else.
This is BS, neutrons (and other products from nuclear blast) will travel at relativistic (nearly light) speed and arrive at once with a flash (gamma and neutron rays matter only as the rest is quickly absorbed; for neutrons, water is an absorber so humidity matters a lot). But here, nothing nuclear, -we get a delay of about 8 seconds, this is of sound speed scale, and has to do with blast wave and sound arrival through the air. Solid explosives typically go with sparks,-this may be contributing to the visuals;-- and the flash by itself gives electromagnetic noise. --Resup (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
There is an alternative speculation on the web, that this video is intentionally hyped so that it becomes viral and gets enough page views to generate some profit...--Resup (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


Maybe something else is set off, but it does look like one camera gets noisy, about 8 seconds after the flash and few seconds before sound arrives. Who knows why-or how real is this video. Real thing most likely will completely knock off chips electronics (no actual data, -nobody was ever smart-phoning the real thing). One explanation: blast wave is supersonic, thus pressure suddenly jumps, before we hear sound from the blast. But this sudden pressure jump still apparently sets of chip noise. (Anyway, going out and check would be quite prudent, real thing will get readings to stay, can be detected with a counter. That's why it would be insane thing to do--there is no way to hide it). --Resup (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Noisy ammo storage blast in Russia (noise either caused by pressure; there is also some EM radiation, ionization-caused; not much needed for a chip.... --Resup (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Tianjin, China

Explosion video CNN report photos (including over 1000 new cars in a parking lot destroyed; and another video)--Resup (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Small nukes

This is filmed from 28 km distance, so looks less spectacular. Big difference with just 10 tons of explosives will be radiation (also short but very bright flash). That's why they put on googles even at such distance. Otherwise will look like maybe 5-8 tons of usual explosive (as some will go into radiation) --Resup (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Mother of All Bombs

For comparison, here is a video of a MOAB used in Afghanistan. This looks very similar to the Saudi Strikes on Yemen.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)