Replies

Hiroshima, though, could only burn up as much oxygen in the local atmosphere as there were combustibles on the ground. When you use a fuel/air bomb, it comes with its own combustibles.

So, you want to compare the combustibles, not the energy release to determine lethality from suffocation in a given period of time, which is what? ~ something like 5 minutes maybe.

Buildings and human bodies are going to burn more slowly than gasoline. Keep that in mind as you do your comparisons.

Also, assume the Russians have improved on the performance of the device since our last announced attainments. We may also have improved the MOAB, but who's saying anything?

“So, you want to compare the combustibles, not the energy release”

And in a thermobaric, where does the energy release come from?

And death by suffocation over five minutes? What do you mean?

Thermobaric bombs don’t have a terribly negative oxygen balance, due to the type of fuel used. If they did, you’d never get all of the fuel to detonate. TNT is quite oxy negative by contrast.

A gasoline-based FAB or thermobaric would be limited to the air in the immediate vicinity. That’s why they don’t use it.

If you want to believe that the Russian thermobarics can completely eliminate human life within three miles you are free to do so, but I remain skeptical.

Hiroshima, though, could only burn up as much oxygen in the local atmosphere as there were combustibles on the ground

Huh? Hiroshima was a nuke. Nuclear explosions don't need oxidizers, are not limited by the O2 in the air and combustibles on the ground, etc. Their secondary effects (fire, burning, etc.) might be, but the original explosion doesn't need anything but room to grow.

The release of energy by a nuke occurs entirely within the warhead -- not counting comparitively minor secondary effects. What we think of as the explosion is actually the superhot small ball of energy reaching equalibrium with its environment, which requires a LOT of expansion.

In contrast, explosives that burn (i.e., don't have their own oxidizer) are actual ongoing reactions -- think SUPER fast burning, so available O2 can become a limiting factor. FAEs address that problem by mixing their "fuel" (explosive) with the air before detonation, ensuring plenty of O2. Another poster explained the nature of the explosive used consume less O2, but I don't know that much about that.

In any case, NO conventional non-nuke weapon is significant compared to any (non-tactical) nuke...