Hydrogen bomb, that's irresponsible journalism really.
this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
104 points (83.8% liked)
Ukraine
10367 readers
612 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
Community Rules
πΊπ¦ Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.
π»π€’No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
π₯Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title
π·Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human involved must be flagged NSFW
β Server Rules
- Remember the human! (no harassment, threats, etc.)
- No racism or other discrimination
- No Nazis, QAnon or similar
- No porn
- No ads or spam (includes charities)
- No content against Finnish law
π³ Defense Aid π₯
π³ Humanitarian Aid βοΈβοΈ
πͺ Volunteer with the International Legionnaires
See also:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I had a genuine momentary freak out.
Second sentence in the article clarifies that it wasn't a thermonuclear device.
still shitty journalism, it's clickbait bullshit
I mean....it was a hydrogen bomb. What else you gonna call it?
That term almost exclusively refers to thermonuclear weapons.
The amazing Ukrainians created what's basically a fuel-air-bomb often referred to as a thermobaric weapon. By spreading the hydrogen out you get a larger bang because the mix reaches a better mixture between the air (oxidizer) and fuel (hydrogen) powering the explosion. It's damn nifty and props to them, but it's not a hydrogen bomb in the conventionally used sense of the word.
I really dislike the term hydrogen bomb because I don't want anyone, anywhere to confuse the terminology and give RU any excuses to escalate from conventional weapons, which probably sounds like an overreaction but if you see the shit the russians use to justify their bullshit...
See: russian accusations of use of chemical weapons while they're being accused by ukraine of using chemical weapons. Don't give them loaded rhetorical talking points.
Personally, I think that "hydrogen bomb" is a worse name for the fission/fusion bomb than for this one. I mean, it is what it is because the name has meant the fission/fusion bomb since it first became a thing, but it was either a bad naming or the name was selected because it was deliberately misleading (cold war and all).
400lbs explosive is less than standard 500lbs bomb. The title makes it clear tbh
No idea what this even means tbf
500 lbs is the standard size bomb that US fighter aircraft carry. Some of them can carry up to 2500 lb bombs, but lose their stealth capabilities because the bomb is outside the airframe.
So basically, really big carbomb
And using "lbs" makes it clear that the publication is not targeted towards people who think critically.
fuel air bomb would be the most accurate description.
It's also not a fuel cell, it's the tank
I mean, it's a bomb fueled by the hydrogen fuel cell in the vehicle. Not sure what else you would call it when trying to differentiate it from something a traditional car or one made from a truck filled with ammonium nitrate.
Yes the term Hydrogen Bomb also refers to a thermonuclear device, but the same two word term han have different, yet similar, meanings.
A hydrogen bomb is a thermonuclear weapon, so almost anything other than that.
Hydrogen is a very simple atom, so how about cslling it the atom bomb?
edit: /s
That name is also already taken. An atom bomb usually refers to the first generation of nuclear bombs that use only fission, e.g., those used in WWII. The hydrogen bomb refers to the second generation of nuclear bombs that use a chain reaction of nuclear fission and fusion to create bombs that are orders of magnitude more powerful.
For comparison, Fat Man was ~20 kilotons and the largest ever bomb (Tsar Bomba) was ~50,000 kilotons.
And why would Yahoo Autos be where you found out Ukraine detonated a thermonuclear weapon in Russia?
The internet was a mistake. Everyone lost the ability for critical thinking or to even look where an article is from apparently.
You don't deserve to be downvoted for this. It's a bomb, that uses hydrogen as fuel, what else would you call it?
And yes, Yahoo Autos is definitely not where you'd hear about this first.
It's journalistic malpractice to not call it something that would differentiate it from a nuke. Simply calling it "a hydrogen cell bomb" or "a bomb fueled by hydrogen" would still be just as accurate and not imply it's a nuke.
On the flip side, Ukraine detonating a nuke wouldn't be something we're discovering about on Yahoo Autos. That would be all over mainstream news everywhere.
no one says hydrogen bomb referring to conventional arms. it's not a thing.
no one says hydrogen bomb referring to conventional arms.
Bold claim, considering you're posting in a thread where the article does exactly that. π€£
fortunately, this stupid thread doesn't encompass the rest of the ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD.
bold claim? pull your head out
To be fair, you did say "no one". Cheer up grumpy-pants!
you're entirely correct, I should have stated 'no one with half a brain or a quarter of an education would make that mistake.'
appreciate the feedback.
note for anyone scrolling by: not a nuke, just hydrogen-air explosion
So, a more energetic miniature Hindenburg?
in so far as the fuel in this burned all at once, instead of slowly over time like hindy. if the hindenburg had exploded all at once, it would be like this.
not really, as the fuel cell would have been pressurized
Well at least somebody found a use for a Mirai. Props to the Ukrainian military for an explosion in their creativity.
They probably only took out the tank so the rest is still scrap.
now any Mirari on the side of the road is a potential explosive to be aware of.
Oh wait... there are none.
One of the tanks.
And here I was only able to turn my Ford Fiesta into a standard nuclear bomb.
it was this moment ~~Jackson~~ putler knew he fucked up!
Damnnnnn!