Jump to content
John Kettler

Stupendous ammo dump explosion at Krasnoyarsk

Recommended Posts

Don't know what caused it or why, but the ammo dump explosion in Krasnoyarsk dwarfed the US M.O.A.B detonation video I've seen. In fact, this is the single biggest non-nuclear explosion I know of, and the yield absolutely has to be at least kiloton range, which puts it well into the nuclear weapon level blast effects. Don't know what formation that ammo dump (doubtless a huge, sprawling complex) supported, but the weapon plants are likely to be working around the clock to replace an immense amount of ordnance, which the video shows definitely included rockets. To me, that looks like an air-to-ground rocket, so this may be a Russian Air Force facility or a Red Army facility which also has those for helicopter use.

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Maybe that's the new Turkish missiles getting delivery delays...  ;)

 

That site was dealing with tube artillery ammo from what I recall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall back in 1991 Norman Schwarzkopf gave a live public briefing about the Gulf War (liberation of Kuwait). At one point he was talking about the US hitting an Iraqi ammo dump and compared the resulting explosion to a particularly infamous ammo dump explosion in Russia, which he named. His comment was broadcast live but is deleted from existing videos of the speech. Look up the briefing and watch the video. Not only is his comment about the Russian ammo dump explosion deleted, the film was edited so you would never know that there was a break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

ikalugin,

Thanks for that. Please post anything else you can on this, as am keenly interested. Found this. Losing 40,000 rounds worth of 122 and 152 powder charges, plus maybe the shells as well, will put a dent in both military capabilities and the defense budget. As noted earlier, that rocket which landed on the road now shows conclusively there was more in that depot than just powder charges w/wo shells. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/a-russian-ammunition-dump-exploded-injuring-multiple-people-2019-8

Wicky,

Ref first, what a gloriously twisted link! The video was excellent, I thought. There's a guy named Stanton Friedman who worked on NERVA, the Atomic Plane and a bunch of highly classified other stuff. Bet he'd be worth talking to about that missile--except that he died on May 19th this year! 

MikeyD,

Would be willing to bet Stormin' Norman was referring to was the destruction of the Red Banner Northern Fleet's main ammo depot near Severomorsk. The numbers the blogger quoted on the extent of the munitions lost seems highly conservative to me, since Jane's Defense Review said something to the effect that the Red Banner Northern Fleet was left with zero missile reloads. Fairly sure there was a satellite pic of some sort, too. LANDSAT? Recall gasping loudly over the sheer extent of the destruction. From what I know of Soviet and Warsaw Pact ammo dumps and such, they were poorly protected against spread of fires and blast compared to ours, making an explosion anywhere sure to be catastrophic over a large area. Here's what I mean. There were no guards on this site at all when the pic was taken! Hope some were put there after the pic surfaced, but if not, it's Walmart for terrorists.

storage-transportation-of-ammunition-rus

 I deem the official explanation to be the rankest BS. No idea why the reference Stormin' Norman made would've been deleted from the videos and whatnot, unless some overly zealous censor thought the general had made a gaffe by disclosing classified information, which he hadn't.

https://redbannernorthernfleet.blogspot.com/2008/05/soviet-naval-disaster-of-day.html

Regards,

John Kettler
 

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, John Kettler said:

ikalugin,

Thanks for that. Please post anything else you can on this, as am keenly interested. Found this. Losing 40,000 rounds worth of 122 and 152 powder charges, plus maybe the shells as well, will put a dent in both military capabilities and the defense budget. As noted earlier, that rocket which landed on the road now shows conclusively there was more in that depot than just powder charges w/wo shells. 
John Kettler

This may sound like a lot, but this is a fairly small ammo dump by ammo dump standards and in a way has solved that specific ammo disposal problem faster than intended.

Edited by ikalugin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/13/2019 at 6:25 AM, John Kettler said:

In fact, this is the single biggest non-nuclear explosion I know of

8th Feb 2015 - huge explosion on Donetsk State chemical products factory (produced HE for industry and military). The factory was located on north-western outskirt of Donetsk, big amont of HE was stored under open sky. During a fire exchange, Ukraianian SPG-9 shell  made overshot and accidentally hit one of HE stock. Shokwawe from the explosion is felt in 20 km around.  

 

Edited by Haiduk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, seems like Russia went with articles 7-8-9 of the CTBT to preclude the use of those stations by foreighn powers for intelligence data collection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ikalugin said:

Yea, seems like Russia went with articles 7-8-9 of the CTBT to preclude the use of those stations by foreighn powers for intelligence data collection.

Can you quote the exact language of the treaty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, IanL said:

Or someone is trying to cover their asses and hide how much danger there is to the public.

Monitoring stations are far away - they won't see any dangerous levels of air pollution from one radioisotope engine failure. Russian MoD tries to limit how much information about engine design US can infer from the radionuclide analysis. But disabling stations is clearly against the treaty. It's just US has set enough precedents of "MAGA uber alles!" in international relations by now. I wish Russia would reciprocate one day with transferring rocket/nuclear technologies to Iran/NK. Or selling advanced AA/AD systems to them. THAT could finally make US think before it acts.

Edited by IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, IMHO said:

Can you quote the exact language of the treaty?

Sure thing. Source:
https://www.ctbto.org/fileadmin/content/treaty/treatytext.tt.html

General provisions 7-8-9:

7. Each State Party shall have the right to take measures to protect sensitive installations and to prevent disclosure of confidential information and data not related to this Treaty.

8. Moreover, all necessary measures shall be taken to protect the confidentiality of any information related to civil and military activities and facilities obtained during verification activities.

9. Subject to paragraph 8, information obtained by the Organization through the verification regime established by this Treaty shall be made available to all States Parties in accordance with the relevant provisions of this Treaty and the Protocol.

I guess citing them as articles may have been misleading/incorrect.

Edited by ikalugin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ikalugin said:

7. Each State Party shall have the right to take measures to protect sensitive installations and to prevent disclosure of confidential information and data not related to this Treaty.

The problem is this situation is EXACTLY what is covered by the Treaty. Explosion, release of radioactive materials - the monitoring stations network was exactly created to verify events like this do not represent over-critical nuclear tests. So invoking this article is kinda lame IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, IMHO said:

The problem is this situation is EXACTLY what is covered by the Treaty. Explosion, release of radioactive materials - the monitoring stations network was exactly created to verify events like this do not represent over-critical nuclear tests. So invoking this article is kinda lame IMO.

The treaty is there to cover tests of nuclear weapons. Unless you have a reasonable belief that this indeed was a nuclear weapon test (and I have not see any serious allegations to that end) this falls under those articles, as this was an event involving nuclear power plant of some sort, not a nuclear weapon explosion/test.
The test of logic here would be: if a terrorist drives an aircraft into a nuclear power plant (on say a nuclear submarine)  - would this be covered by the CTBT, as the event both produces an explosion and radioactive fallout?

Plus, because US (and a bunch of other countries) did not ratify the treaty - it is not yet in force.

Edited by ikalugin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, ikalugin said:

The treaty is there to cover tests of nuclear weapons. Unless you have a reasonable belief that this indeed was a nuclear weapon test (and I have not see any serious allegations to that end) this falls under those articles, as this was an event involving nuclear power plant of some sort, not a nuclear weapon explosion/test.
The test of logic here would be: if a terrorist drives an aircraft into a nuclear power plant (on say a nuclear submarine)  - would this be covered by the CTBT, as the event both produces an explosion and radioactive fallout?

Plus, because US (and a bunch of other countries) did not ratify the treaty - it is not yet in force.

No, you misunderstand the Treaty. It exists not to look after the nuclear tests (they are banned) but to ensure seismic/nuclear events ARE NOT OVER-CRITICAL NUCLEAR TESTS. So monitoring stations network exists exactly to gather seismic and radionuclide data and to use this information to prove that such an event is not a banned test event.

PS I'd rather say it's in a kind of limbo. It's not ratified but all the parties took voluntary obligations to observe it. And US's egocentric MAGA-esque behavior can ruin this one as well. US wants to ban sub-critical hydronuclear tests as well. They are allowed as of now.

Edited by IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, IMHO said:

No, you misunderstand the Treaty. It exists not to look after the nuclear tests (they are banned) but to ensure seismic/nuclear events ARE NOT OVER-CRITICAL NUCLEAR TESTS. So monitoring stations network exists exactly to gather seismic and radionuclide data and to use this information to prove that such an event is not a banned test event.

PS I'd rather say it's in a kind of limbo. It's not ratified but all the parties took voluntary obligations to observe it. And US's egocentric MAGA-esque behavior can ruin this one as well. US wants to ban sub-critical hydronuclear tests as well. They are allowed as of now.

Well this is where the test of logic comes into the game. For example if a US spacecraft with a prototype reactor has it's booster explode on the launch pad - would this be covered by security provisions?

In my (and it seems fairly common legally speaking) reading of the treaty it will have the right to do so, in fact this is the kind of situation those provisions were writen into the treaty according to some of the authors I talked to - so the stations could not be used to collect intelligence data.

Edited by ikalugin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ikalugin said:

Well this is where the test of logic comes into the game. For example if a US spacecraft with a prototype reactor has it's booster explode on the launch pad - would this be covered by security provisions?

What do you mean "covered by security provisions"?

6 minutes ago, ikalugin said:

In my (and it seems fairly common legally speaking) reading of the treaty it will have the right to do so, in fact this is the kind of situation those provisions were writen into the treaty according to some of the authors I talked to - so the stations could not be used to collect intelligence data.

Seems like we're speaking different languages. The Treaty is the ban on nuclear tests PLUS the verification mechanism to prove the signatories do no conduct banned test covertly. So yes, you're right testing nuclear rocket engine is not prohibited but the Treaty contains the verification mechanism in the form of monitoring stations to collect data to ensure this one was a rocket engine test and not a A-bomb's. Monitoring stations network surely provide information of intelligence value but that's EXACTLY why they exist. The Treaty does not ban the collection of intelligence information - on the contrary it facilitates it. Like Open Skies treaty exists to provides a legal framework to collect intelligence data not to ban it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IMHO said:

It's just US has set enough precedents of "MAGA uber alles!" in international relations by now.

??? not sure what "MAGA uber allies" means or how any US action relates to an accident during a Russian test.

3 hours ago, IMHO said:

I wish Russia would reciprocate one day with transferring rocket/nuclear technologies to Iran/NK. Or selling advanced AA/AD systems to them. THAT could finally make US think before it acts.

Actually I would be afraid that such an action would cause the US to act before they think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IanL said:

??? not sure what "MAGA uber allies" means or how any US action relates to an accident during a Russian test.

I meant that the view of today of US establishment is every country on this planet is bound to act according to US interests irrespective of their own.

1 hour ago, IanL said:

Actually I would be afraid that such an action would cause the US to act before they think.

I implied that a credible threat rather than an action itself may finally make US think about other countries' interests. Due to current economic setup US can hurt Russia's economic interests but not the other way around. The issues that Russia can put on the negotiation table is of this magnitude - nothing of the lesser extent, IMO. It's just contrary to the popular view Russia's foreign policy is more cautios than it's not so Russia avoids to go that far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, IMHO said:

I meant that the view of today of US establishment is every country on this planet is bound to act according to US interests irrespective of their own.

I implied that a credible threat rather than an action itself may finally make US think about other countries' interests. Due to current economic setup US can hurt Russia's economic interests but not the other way around. The issues that Russia can put on the negotiation table is of this magnitude - nothing of the lesser extent, IMO. It's just contrary to the popular view Russia's foreign policy is more cautios than it's not so Russia avoids to go that far.

It seems to me, that they're very wary of NK and Iran. Who can blame them? Much like giving a loaded gun to a person with a history of deranged, and unpredictable behavior -- what if they shoot at a cordial country (South Korea or Isreal)? Mayhaps even hand over the technology to a geopolitical competitor (China)?

There is the fear of the unknown, which is useful at the negotiating table. If their technology is widely known, that card is gone from their hand. Technology is also worth a pretty penny. You can't sell, what you give out for free. By carefully controlling what technology is exported to which nation, the Soviet Union managed to encourage compliance and exercise responsibility as a global power.

Pardon me if I put on a tinfoil hat, but consider that RF's establishment benefits from US economic pressure. More domestic demand, means less competition for state-owned companies. The establishment can blame the US for any economic problem, and still be technically correct. Especially, if the problem is actually caused by embezzlement and corruption. It is a mess-free way to prevent Pepsi diplomacy, oligarch opportunism and pro-Western sympathies.

Judging by the results, sanctions have only increased RF's military adventures. Where once, the West struggled to break through the Iron Curtain, now they are rebuilding it. Speaking from recent experience with NK and Iran, sanctions only seem to motivate increased aggression. Instead of winning hearts & minds, the West is doing the exact opposite.

My solution is to try the exact inverse -- to tempt the East with the taste of democracy. Lower the sanctions, and begin to aggressively export Western goods. Get the consumers hooked and their economy dependent on Western imports. This has worked before with the fall of the Soviet Union, and the rehabilitation of Axis Europe and Asia.

((Apologies for veering off-topic. I am curious how big the explosion was, in terms of tonnage. Especially how it compares to the Halifax disaster of 1917.))

Edited by DerKommissar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...