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

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

I know, but you are forgetting about the wreck of the WW2 munitions ship which was the concern.

I'm not. Some inspectors going on board the Ruby to determine that it's not a bomb renders that concern moot as well.

1. If Montgomery for whatever reason exploded right now, Ruby is too far away to be affected.

2. If it's determined that Ruby isn't carrying fuel in the cargo hold to turn the AN into a bomb, it has no way to affect the wreck of the Montgomery except by possibly ramming, which could be prevented by simply not allowing Ruby to head that direction. They're still many miles apart right now.

If it has no fuel in the cargo hold to make it a bomb, it should just be allowed to go to a mainland European port for repairs. Non-story.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

The articles I posted could be seen as a bit on the side of 'Doom Porn', isn't alot of tabloid press these days? But the fact that RV Ruby decided to anchor a few miles away from the USS Richard Montgomery is a tad weird, especially after Putin has threatened revenge against Britain for supporting Ukraine in defending itself.

HM Coastguard has said the vessel is securely anchored after successfully completing refuelling at sea at 9.15pm on Saturday 28 September and that it has appropriate safety certificates approved by the vessel’s flag state and is able to make its own way, but it's still sat there, in the middle of one of the worlds busiest shipping lanes. Why?
After seeing the explosion of Ammonium nitrate in Beirut (2020) which killed over 200 people, it is believed that the MV Ruby carries 10x more in it's cargo hold.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Ammonium Nitrate doesn't do anything without being mixed with a fuel first. Anyone mention that?

It's illegal to mention the potential fuel(s) or obtain any documentation/research in that area outside further education under UK terror laws - intel services did manage to foil an al-qu'eda terror plot by replacing the tonne+ of AN with baking powder though.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Kurokage

you SAS guys will blow it up like Nord Stream and blame Russia again. I would not put it past the royals to sacrifice some civilians to justify a NATO war mandate and detonate it in the midst of busy shipping channel nearby the most innocent targets possible. The Royals of Britain are just as nasty as the Israeli government, I am certain they would gladly sacrifice their own people, lie about it, and then quietly admit it nearly a year later.

Your Monarchs, you know the wealthiest families and people in your country that miraculously have zero policy control over the country unlike every other civilization on Earth and their wealthiest citizens, are running the show, not your MP's . That would be like believing that the US congress is not actually run by the big corporations through their lobbyists. Except with Royals, they don not need lobbyists, they own everything. They just communicate directly with their friends in the military. Maybe the heirs further down the list still use lobbysists.

Honestly the way the article reads make this sound like vulnerable target for sabotage more than concern from an attack by them. I suspect they want or intend on doing something with it.

Balderdash and piffle from start to finish - for starters it's monarch singular, the Queen wasn't even in the wealthiest 350 in the UK for the last decade.

King Charles has around £610m which is 50x less than the UK's richest man Gopi Hinduja and puts him at 258th richest in the UK.

www.thetimes.com...

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

My understanding is a fire on board could set it off.

I don't think the Beirut AN was mixed with fuel?

I won't research it as I don't want a knock at the door from Plod!

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

My understanding is a fire on board could set it off.

I don't think the Beirut AN was mixed with fuel?

I won't research it as I don't want a knock at the door from Plod!

The Beirut AN was stored in a port. Ports have lots of items and substances on hand, and safe practices are required to keep the wrong things from being stored near each other so no explosions or other kinds of dangerous reactions can occur. That didn't happen in Beirut.

The AN in Beirut was stored next to a large cache of fireworks, which is an enormous safety issue because that combination made the AN stored there extremely dangerous. Some of the fireworks exploded first, so then you've got lots of other chemicals plus ignition sources flying around mixing with the AN because they were in the same warehouse. That set off the larger explosion.

Bringing us back to, again, inspecting the ship to determine whether any such conditions are present and whether any kind of explosion is physically possible. AN can be safely stored and transported. It's done all the time. It can't just spontaneously explode or be made to explode without the proper means to do so. If no such means are available on the ship, the ship is perfectly safe.

ETA: It's also worth noting that, in the Beirut explosion, only a portion of the AN detonated. One study determined that only about 20% of it did. That should give you an idea how stable it is and how critical it is to have it properly mixed to make it explosive. Even with such a massive explosion in its immediate vicinity, most of the AN didn't detonate because it wasn't properly mixed.

It's also worth noting that, in the Beirut explosion, only a portion of the AN detonated. One study determined that only about 20% of it did. That should give you an idea how stable it is and how critical it is to have it properly mixed to make it explosive.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

Can you post any sources for your claims?

I have posted further back links to poorly stored fertilizer and how with moisyure can ture into a solid chuck which can also lead to more problems under the right conditions.

a reply to: Kurokage

You can read the general details in the Wikipedia article on it. If you're interested in the studies, there are links to them there as well.

NY Times also did a writeup on it, making pretty clear it took a lot of other factors besides just the AN. They point to the fireworks and kerosene being stored in the same warehouse.

a reply to: Kurokage

20,000 tons,... or, 20 kilotons... FOURTY MILLION POUNDS

the nukes on japan in ww2 was 15-20 kilotons....... OF T.N.T.

the ship is packed with 20 kilotons of AMMONIUM NITRATE
(high explosives)

should do a nice job floating up the thames, to london

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

Seems to be behind a paywall?

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

I read the the wiki stuff and articles about it on other sights when I posted the thread. One article did talk about moisture being a problem causing it to turn into a large solid mass and the effect of that on release of gases once ignited.

Some Lebanese articles about the Beriut explosion talked about welding being done in the vacinaty. Which is partly why I posted the story, the RV Ruby had been damaged and needed repair.....

You do have to admit that parking a cargo ship full of 20,000 tonnes of AN near a small Estuary in one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world is a bit odd or very stupid.

originally posted by: confuzedcitizen
a reply to: Kurokage

20,000 tons,... or, 20 kilotons... FOURTY MILLION POUNDS

the nukes on japan in ww2 was 15-20 kilotons....... OF T.N.T.

the ship is packed with 20 kilotons of AMMONIUM NITRATE
(high explosives)

should do a nice job floating up the thames, to london

It's not equivalent like that.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

At least it hasn't gone up!

But why is the bloody thing still there?

I thought I'd update you guys.

As of 11/10/24 the RV ruby is still anchored off the English coast hasn't moved.

a reply to: Kurokage
I live here, it was clear from the start that Russia would gain nothing if NS2 went up.

But there was Biden, who promised that.
But there was the USA, whose German gas and oil dependency on Russia - which Kohl and Schröder led us into - has always been a thorn in America's side.
But there is also the German government, which is so cowardly that it would let something like that happen, to safe face.

In fact, it only had advantages for the cause and hardly any disadvantages for the interests of the USA and the preservation of the dignity of the German government. The LNG terminals were immediately approved in an expedited procedure. Where did the plans come from so quickly?

Yes, Russia = started the war, right. But on the subject of Nord Stream, the USA and the preservation of German identity politics have gained more than Russia. By far. Because those who are suffering are the population again and this was exploited to push through draconian climate laws again. The Green-Reds finally had a reason to take legal action against oil, gas and wood stoves.

As someone who lives here and is affected by this, I can tell you that for the purposes of the US and German governments, the NS2 explosion was the best thing that could have happened. Russia knows this too.

As if my government or the US government would shy away from something like that. All in all, this was a clear signal to Russia, from Germany, from the USA, that the geopolitical situation in Europe cannot be restored so quickly. In political jargon, this is also called burning bridges.

Looks like its all been resolved, the Labour government have bent the knee to their Russian paymasters and allowed the ship entry to Norfolk


link

a reply to: SprocketUK

From your link:

'Norfolk County Council said the ship left the port to discharge some contaminated fertiliser at sea, but was given permission to return by officials acting on behalf of the Government."

So, they dumped it at sea?

That can't be good for the environment?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Give it a year you will be able to walk to Holland on the seaweed

a reply to: SprocketUK

I'd give it a go, but what with my drowning and being clinically dead and all experience I might give it a miss.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2Ya , they dumped the entire content. The video that I saw yesterday seems to be scrubbed.

a reply to: bluemooone44

Great! As if our fishing industry hasn't enough problems?