In today's video we'll talk about thermobaric weapons and their effects on humans but i
make a premise, I am not an expert and I can t replace those who have made the study of
certain topics a profession but I can still make myself useful: translate into simple
words, where possible, complex concepts. Let's start. On March 1, 2022 a senior US defense
official tells journalists the deployment, without specifying the exact location, of
Tos-1 weapon systems capable of sending thermobaric rockets against Ukrainian targets. A dramatic
signal dictated by the Russian need to close the game as quickly as possible, after the
Ukrainians have demonstrated a great ability to resist to a more numerous and better equipped
enemy. Then the visual confirmation, on the web are circulating the first videos and images
that show some Russian convoys carrying these lethal weapons. But what exactly is a thermobaric
weapon and on what occasions has it been used throughout history? It is not easy to give
a definition, above all because the term has been improperly used to include in a single
category different weapon systems and to describe different effects. Etymology comes to our
rescue: the Greek words "thermos" and "baros", respectively heat and pressure, describe well
the effects of these weapons: very high temperature and dynamic overpressure (or shockwave). In
the simplest terms, a thermobaric munition is a type of enhanced explosive munition that
produces the typical effect of a conventional high-temperature explosion but, by consuming
the oxygen present in the air, creates a much greater shockwave, thus increasing the lethality
zone and going to hit victims who are located further away from the epicenter of the detonation.
I open and close a parenthesis: thermobaric weapon and fuel-air weapon are not synonymous,
they are two species of the same genre "enhanced-blast weapons", because their operating principle
is different but the effects are the same. A typical thermobaric device consists of a
container of a fuel mixture that houses a small explosive burst charge, called "dispersal
charge." After the mixture is dispersed as a cloud and mixes with the surrounding oxygen,
the charge causes it to ignite, creating a large shockwave that does enormous damage,
literally crushing personnel in the immediate vicinity to death. According to a 1993 study
by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, the methods of killing against living targets
are diverse and brutal: what kills is obviously the pressure wave and subsequent vacuum of
oxygen, which collapses the lungs, but the victims will also be severely burned and likely
to breathe in the burning toxic fuel. The same agency in another paper speculates that
because "the shock and pressure waves cause minimal damage to brain tissue, it s possible
that victims are not rendered unconscious by the blast, but instead suffer for several
seconds or minutes while they suffocate." But it doesn't end there: outside the area
of the cloud, the shock wave travels very fast and can hit even those who are beyond
the range of the explosion, causing them serious injuries to internal organs. Think that the
pressure that is created is up to 2 times greater than that generated by a conventional
explosive weapon. This is confirmed by a study of the Central Intelligence Agency of the
United States, for which "the effect of such an explosion in confined spaces is immense.
Those near the ignition point are obliterated. Those at the fringe are likely to suffer many
internal, and thus invisible injuries . In addition to collapsing lungs, there is talk
of embolisms in blood vessels, bleeding and lacerations that can lead to peritonitis,
ruptured eardrums and displacement of eyes from their sockets. It s not an exaggeration
to say that such devices can have the effects of a tactical nuclear weapon without the disadvantage
of producing radiations. Because of the mixture's ability to easily creep into any cavity, there
is nothing that can protect against its devastating effects, neither natural terrain features
nor field fortifications that aren t hermetically sealed. Indeed, the ideal use is precisely
against enclosed structures, such as bunkers or buildings, since the cloud, by sucking
in materials nearby to fill the oxygen void, amplifies the destruction of the structure's
load-bearing elements. As reported by a Russian military scientist writing for the military
magazine Voyennyye Znaniya (Military Knowledge), thermobaric weapons are also effective in
eliminating minefields and completely destroying the vegetation of a certain area to make room
for helicopter landing sites. In fact, the US first experimented with this system in
the 1960s in Vietnam with the famous and massive daisy-cutter bomb, capable of clearing entire
sections of forest. In general, the category of enhanced explosive weapons has found use
on several occasions: the US used them in 1991 during the first Gulf War, then in 2001
in Afghanistan in an attempt to flush out Al-Qaeda members sheltering in the mountains
of Tora Bora, and more recently in 2017 against ISIL members in the Afghan region of Nangarhar.
The Russians, on the other hand, tested several thermobaric systems in 1969 during the border
conflict with China, then it was the turn of attacks on the Afghan Panshjir valley in
the early 1980s against Massoud's forces and more recently, as Interfax reported, between
October and December 1999 during the offensive against Chechen forces in the direction of
the capital Groznyj. During the Russian advance to take the city, two main thermobaric launch
systems were used: the devastating Tos-1, also called "Buratino", which we hear so much
about these days, operational since the early 80's during the Soviet-Afghan war and developed
by the Transmash design office in Omsk. It s a 220 mm multiple rocket launcher system
mounted on a T-72 tank chassis. Its maximum effective range is 3.5 km but other sources
say it could reach 5 km. The other Afghanistan veteran, much smaller in size clearly, is
the single-shot RPO-A Shmel shoulder-mounted launcher with a claimed maximum range of 1km
and a maximum effective range of 600 m. This type of weapon is at its best when used as
a "bunker buster" and loses some effectiveness when used against dispersed troops in the
open field, normally killing no more than a couple in bursts. When used against armored
vehicles, however, it usually damages the vehicle, but the crew survives and is able
to return fire. To conclude, it remains to be understood if there are international treaties
that prohibit or limit the production or use of such weapons. Unfortunately not, but this
doesn t mean that there are no arguments against their development: as reported by Human Rights
watch, since the enhanced blast weapons cover a very large area, they are prone to indiscriminate
use, especially in or near populated areas. In urban settings it s very difficult to direct
the effect of these weapons only to militaries without involving civilians, because of their
very nature, and then for the fact that covering every corner or cr vis make it virtually impossible
for civilians to take shelter from their destructive effect. So even if a thermobaric weapon is
aimed at a military target, its extensive and uncontrollable effect doesn t exclude
the involvement of civilian victims and this, that is the use of weapons in attacks that
can not distinguish between combatants and civilians, is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions
of 1899 and 1907. However, efforts have not yet produced concrete results, given that
the 1980 Convention prohibiting the production of certain conventional weapons deals with
incendiary weapons, in which category, however, thermobaric weapons would not fall. And if
we look at the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the problem doesn t only concern
the possible use of these weapons but also of the so-called cluster munitions and obviously
of the feared nuclear warheads. Some suspect that Russia has already used the former, despite
the existence of an international convention of 2008 that prohibits them and that Moscow,
although not a signatory, has always respected. The possible use of the Russian nuclear arsenal
instead, which now counts almost 6000 warheads, is certainly the most worrying, given the
recent threats of President Putin to use them, if any power should interfere militarily.
Well, we we are done for today, I thank you all for your attention and see you in the
next episode. Ciao!