this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
103 points (83.7% liked)

Ukraine

8207 readers
591 users here now

News and discussion related to Ukraine

*Sympathy for enemy combatants in any form is prohibited.

*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.


Donate to support Ukraine's Defense

Donate to support Humanitarian Aid


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 131 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Hydrogen bomb, that's irresponsible journalism really.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 months ago

I had a genuine momentary freak out.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Second sentence in the article clarifies that it wasn't a thermonuclear device.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 months ago (1 children)

still shitty journalism, it's clickbait bullshit

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I mean....it was a hydrogen bomb. What else you gonna call it?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

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).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

400lbs explosive is less than standard 500lbs bomb. The title makes it clear tbh

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No idea what this even means tbf

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

So basically, really big carbomb

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

And using "lbs" makes it clear that the publication is not targeted towards people who think critically.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago

fuel air bomb would be the most accurate description.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

It's also not a fuel cell, it's the tank

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

A hydrogen bomb is a thermonuclear weapon, so almost anything other than that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Hydrogen is a very simple atom, so how about cslling it the atom bomb?

edit: /s

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

no one says hydrogen bomb referring to conventional arms. it's not a thing.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

no one says hydrogen bomb referring to conventional arms.

Bold claim, considering you're posting in a thread where the article does exactly that. 🤣

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

fortunately, this stupid thread doesn't encompass the rest of the ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD.

bold claim? pull your head out

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

To be fair, you did say "no one". Cheer up grumpy-pants!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

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.