BREAKING: Tactical NUKE YEMEN Sanaa

Why is this not so OBVIOUS to anyone that it was a conventional explosion on an ammunitions pile? Not every explosion that generates a mushroom cloud is nuclear in nature..MOAB'S and FOABS are even waay more powerful than this one.

here is a tactical nuke
, the smallest warhead ever developed, Davy Crockett.

ONLY 20 TONS OF TNT. 1,000 times less than hiroshima.

only 75lbs warhead.

yesterday they were bragging they we gonna get nukes, and today they popped one off.

what's the prahlum ?

.

Yes, Thank you for proving my point. This was no tactical nuke. It was no MOAB or FOAB. People will believe what they want to believe....but that' none of my business.

I dont know why you think its ammo theres no secondary blast, my guess is a large amount of rocket fuel. When a ammo dump goes off theres normaly a chain of small blast and then a large blast with another chain of small blast after that. This was as big as a nuclear blast but could have been rocket fuel. So yes it might have well of been a nuke. It had the yield of one, but no fallout... I hope... The one thing that stuck out to me is the amount of air rushing in the second vid after the blast.. WOW

:rogerthat:

what are you talking about?

And why does the blast in Sannaa have to be a carbon copy of old test nuke video with old cameras under different circumstances in order for it to be a legit nuke..

There are many factors its not going to look identical to test footage..

the largest FOAB is 16 tons of HE. look at some MOAB and FOAB
explosions on YouTube, they're wimpy compared to what we saw in the video.

.

This video is from 1 to 3 weeks ago not today...

Perception is everything. Nobody said it had to be carbon copy. But if you're talking about logistics or semantics..the logistics/semantics STILL do not come close.

Is that all you got? Lol..what a douche

i'm even willing to ratchet that down to a 0.5 kt tactical nuke if need be.

but i still think it was a full 1 kt nuke.

.

Ok then...then tell me about the logistics of the detonation point. Why there? How many casualties? If it was a 'Test' what were the preparations? You can't answer that because 1.) That information is not available and 2.) It did not happen for OBVIOUS reasons.

oh screw that.

it was a 1 kt tactical nuke.

.

Ok because you said so...I believe you...

maybe the Pakis were just testing one out, before the Saudis took delivery on the rest of them.
this is big business, man !!!

.

Nuclear weapons needs to be maintained or they don't work. Other than that tidbit I couldn't say exactly what needs to be maintained.

i thought we established that it was probably an Iranian nuke in a weapons cache.
And somehow(probably because of poor design) it went off probably due to fire or an airstrike.

its NOT a nuke but a bunker buster type bomb.

Thermobaric device. Or fuel-air explosive. Think of a gasoline bomb designed to create a pressure front slow and forceful enough to pulverize just about anything.

Compared to your standard HE 1000lb iron bomb, a thermobaric is like a full body push compared to a right cross. Russia plays with these types of weapons, and even have an RPG with a warhead using the principle that can knock over an entire building.

Definitely a tactical mini nuke.

the caracterostics did not resemble a fuel air bomb, there was no bisible shockwave, and this explosion was far too slow for a fuel air bomb. You must be either a shill, or an idiot.

The more I look at the various videos of this, the more I am convinced we are looking at a nuke of some sort. In two of the five videos we have access to, there is definite distortion due to what I would assume is neutrons impacting the CCD.

I believe it is a bunker buster as well. We can see from one angle that there is a smallish puff of dust just prior to the massive explosion. My theory is that this is the dust plume from the bunker buster "tip" plowing into the earth or whatever buildings/bunkers might be there.

My assumption is that if this were to have penetrated far enough, the initial light burst might have been somewhat contained, leaving us with the massive fireball we see. That being said, we can see from older test videos of small nuclear weapons that the flash gets considerably less brilliant in "micro" nuclear platforms, supporting my theory.

Secondary to this, the initial blast of a neutron bomb would have affects that could reach out hundreds of meters into the earth, effectively wiping out any infrastructure and personnel below ground that may not be seen.

Just my thoughts on the subject. I don't claim to be an expert. Just postulating a theory is all.

Last Edited by Phobia on 05/22/2015 03:04 PM

Tritium replenishment is one thing.
There are complex electronics in the firing circuits
and safety circuits that all have testing modes.

The fairly unstable tritium used in boosted fission and thermonuclear fusion devices has to be periodically replenished, and components exposed to ionizing radiation tested to assure that no detrimental structural or electrical defects have occurred. While the main nuclear material is not replaced unless damaged, uranium-235 is problematic for long-term usage as it's primary decay product, the alpha particle (essentially a helium nucleus) may create interstitial cracks in the solid material and absorb neutrons, rendering the weapons both potentially unstable (though not dangerously so) and prone to fizzle.