naraburns nihil supernum
1yr ago
(text post)
30319 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #2
This is a refreshed megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
The larger munitions (MK84s have 2000 lbs warheads) do have a certain cinematic sense to them in real-time. They're not really bright in the way movie explosions, are, though, and to the extent that there are flashes at all they're vastly outweighed by the dust kicked up. A number of videos with slow-motion cameras (MK82s have 500-pound warheads) from test fires do look more cinematic, but it's important to keep in mind that those blasts are over in tenths of a second, and at real-time unless they drop at a shallow angle you're going to catch them primarily by the dust clouds.
((I'll skip over some weirder configurations, like inert bombs or naval mines.))
The trick's that the fire and heat, barring some very specialized cases like explosions in an enclosed area or secondary explosives, are generally not the main source of damage for detonations. What kills and destroys is the pressure wave. The fire and heat is usually remnants of remaining explosive material that didn't burn off before the pressure wave overtook them.
FEMA has a good document (cw: probably will get you Put On a List) on this from a Blue Team perspective trying to reduce harm, and also what sort of buildings are more or less vulnerable to explosives. Chart 4-11 gives a (very approximate) point for where concrete columns fail. Unfortunately, it's harder to predict for buildings as a class; most modern buildings are designed to require near-complete failure of all main supports to collapse rather than merely being unsafe, but sometimes you'll find a dumb decision come in that lets sections peal off from relatively minor hits. Older US residential buildings are often more vulnerable due to the frame structure leaving the building vulnerable to hits on one or two major supports, while contrast Australia, where cinderblock and concrete everything means buildings often will stay up. I dunno Israeli architecture but I'd expect it tends to the latter side.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Real explosions don't look like movie explosions. The layman perception of what big explosions look like comes largely from fuel fires for special effects.
Oh, wow. That’s very informative, thank you.
But then, there were other videos which supposedly showed JDAM explosions that looked quite cinematic.
(It’s also my understanding that JDAM is a conversion kit rather than an actual weapon’s name, so I’m taking it with a huge dose of skepticism)
The larger munitions (MK84s have 2000 lbs warheads) do have a certain cinematic sense to them in real-time. They're not really bright in the way movie explosions, are, though, and to the extent that there are flashes at all they're vastly outweighed by the dust kicked up. A number of videos with slow-motion cameras (MK82s have 500-pound warheads) from test fires do look more cinematic, but it's important to keep in mind that those blasts are over in tenths of a second, and at real-time unless they drop at a shallow angle you're going to catch them primarily by the dust clouds.
((I'll skip over some weirder configurations, like inert bombs or naval mines.))
The trick's that the fire and heat, barring some very specialized cases like explosions in an enclosed area or secondary explosives, are generally not the main source of damage for detonations. What kills and destroys is the pressure wave. The fire and heat is usually remnants of remaining explosive material that didn't burn off before the pressure wave overtook them.
FEMA has a good document (cw: probably will get you Put On a List) on this from a Blue Team perspective trying to reduce harm, and also what sort of buildings are more or less vulnerable to explosives. Chart 4-11 gives a (very approximate) point for where concrete columns fail. Unfortunately, it's harder to predict for buildings as a class; most modern buildings are designed to require near-complete failure of all main supports to collapse rather than merely being unsafe, but sometimes you'll find a dumb decision come in that lets sections peal off from relatively minor hits. Older US residential buildings are often more vulnerable due to the frame structure leaving the building vulnerable to hits on one or two major supports, while contrast Australia, where cinderblock and concrete everything means buildings often will stay up. I dunno Israeli architecture but I'd expect it tends to the latter side.
Thank you so much for this! I’ve been around guns for a while, but never had any experience with anything explody.
So now it does make sense to me that most of the spectacle in the videos was fuel being dispersed and lit up.
By the way, Israeli and Arab architecture really is much more heavy on the cinderblocks and concrete- wood isn’t used that often at all.
Well, their area is fairly short on wood and forests.
Though Europe is also using wood on much lower scale for home construction than USA, as far as I know. Mostly for different reasons.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link