Russian ‘floating bomb’ ship packed with explosives now just 15 miles from two UK towns

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: SprocketUK

Me too. I read a book where that was the plot but can't remember which one.

Bet it was a Jack Higgins one right up his street that sort of thing. Can just imagine Sean Dillon getting into all that.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I'm was just kidding also. No worries.

A lot of nonsense in this thread.

AN fertilizer isn't explosive by itself, you'd have to mix it with a fuel (diesel is commonly used) then you would need an initiator and most likely a booster too.

The Beirut explosion wasn't an accident, it was an Israeli op to take out a Hezbollah explosives cache.

Russia didn't blow up their own pipeline, it's just stupid.
Biden and Victoria Nueland are both on video saying we would take it out.

Who exactly the US used to do it is still in question though.

All of this doesn't mean that Putin is good(he's not) , or that Russia isn't up to something. I'm sure they are.

But the whole floating bomb thing is obvious fear mongering propaganda aimed at low info rubes that still believe whatever the media tells them to.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

haha I remember a tv show pointing out how, since the Russians would have beat the Nazis anyway, we should have sat it all out, kept our money and just fought the Japs. We'd have been a few trillion better off and kept most of the empire together

Only trouble with that would've been the 'commies' sitting off our coast throwing bombs nicking our fish ,instead of angry French throwing stones!!!

a reply to: andy06shake

As they say on the Isle of Sheppey:

"Red sky at night, refineries alight".

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Well, 'demoliton' doesn't always mean 'detonated'. There are other ways.

Best course of action would be to prepare for it to detonate (i.e. evacuate surrounding communities), and then attempt to spread it out. Then selectively detonate (but without a chain reaction).

Otherwise, it's going to be a ticking time bomb sitting there in one big pile for potentially another 50-100 years.

a reply to: watchitburn

The MV Ruby has fuel aboard......

a reply to: watchitburn

AN fertilizer isn't explosive by itself, you'd have to mix it with a fuel (diesel is commonly used) then you would need an initiator and most likely a booster too.

I get that the tabloids have played up the report, but maybe you missed the fact that the MV Ruby is sat just out of our terrirtorial waters, 10 miles off from a WW2 sunken American ship with a pile of explosives on??

The Beirut explosion wasn't an accident, it was an Israeli op to take out a Hezbollah explosives cache.

Maybe you can post evidence of that??

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

There have been regular detailed surveys.

Spreading it out is a bad idea.

I don't think many divers would be up for that?

a reply to: watchitburn

The Beirut explosion wasn't an accident, it was an Israeli op to take out a Hezbollah explosives cache.

Was it not stray fireworks or something like that?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Touching it at all is a bad idea.

Feck poking 80-year-old explosive things with sticks.

Especially underwater for obvious reasons.

I suppose it could be done via robotic probes.

But I'm either on to science fiction or the thing would be apt to simply set off the entire consignment.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: watchitburn

The Beirut explosion wasn't an accident, it was an Israeli op to take out a Hezbollah explosives cache.

Was it not stray fireworks or something like that?

A fire from welding work carried near the warehouse.

A fire appears to have triggered the explosion of the ammonium nitrate in Beirut.

Lebanese broadcaster LBCI and Reuters news agency cited sources as saying the fire was started by welding work being carried out on a hole in Warehouse 12.

Also this stood out from the article about the Beirut explosion...

"The real problem is that over time it will absorb little bits of moisture and it eventually turns into an enormous rock," Andrea Sella, professor of chemistry at University College London, told the BBC. This makes it more dangerous because if a fire reaches it, the chemical reaction will be much more intense.

a reply to: andy06shake

I remember the late Steve Irwin:

"These snakes can get really cranky. So I'm going to poke 'im with a stick..."

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

A stingray barb to the heart that killed Irwin in the end.

But point taken.

a reply to: andy06shake

My personal motto is "Poke it with a stick"😉

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I think Theodore Roosevelt said "Walk softly and carry a big stick".

I wonder how he would have dealt with Putin's shenanigans?

Anyhoo i digress.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

LOLOL!! No, I wasn't suggesting divers do it! LOL!! That would be a bad idea indeed!! Very bad!

It would need to be done via other means, probably with tugs and some very long towing cables, at least initially. Much of the ordnance is now likely inert from seawater inclusion. The problem is, no one knows how much is inert. The first step would be to disturb it to find out. Dangerous? Absolutely, but still better than a ticking time bomb which could go off at any time when people least expect it...years from now. At least this way, evacuations would take place ahead of time and then an intentional act would begin the demolition process.

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: watchitburn

The Beirut explosion wasn't an accident, it was an Israeli op to take out a Hezbollah explosives cache.

Was it not stray fireworks or something like that?

A fire from welding work carried near the warehouse.

A fire appears to have triggered the explosion of the ammonium nitrate in Beirut.

Lebanese broadcaster LBCI and Reuters news agency cited sources as saying the fire was started by welding work being carried out on a hole in Warehouse 12.

Also this stood out from the article about the Beirut explosion...

"The real problem is that over time it will absorb little bits of moisture and it eventually turns into an enormous rock," Andrea Sella, professor of chemistry at University College London, told the BBC. This makes it more dangerous because if a fire reaches it, the chemical reaction will be much more intense.

A pile of AN lit on fire will not explode. It will burn (furiously) but not explode. In this regard it is like gunpowder.

AN will indeed harden when exposed to moisture and, as noted, it does get hard as rock. If it is then exposed to heat the outside will flash off, but as the temperature rises the inside wants to flash off also once the flashpoint is reached. This is what causes an explosion in solidified AN.

It's not the ammonium nitrate itself 'exploding', it's the gases around the burning AN not being able to expand fast enough. This is why AN is such an effective mining explosive. It's not the ANFO which breaks the rock, it's the expanding gases which break the rock when the AN and Fuel Oil mixture is ignited.

If you light AN on fire inside an enclosed space (like say the cargo hold of a ship), the result won't be pretty. But if you were to open the cargo hold, the AN would burn (likely resulting in the loss of the ship), but it wouldn't explode.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

But once they start towing it it's likely to go off.

I don't think that would be devastating but the concern here. Is that combined with all that ammonium nitrate going off as well.

Odd that the Ruby, supposedly on route to Malta, spent time floating nearby North Sea rigs etc

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

How is the AN being stored onboard? In a confined space?