11 comments

[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 22.2 ms ] thread
Apparently the US Navy does these semi-regularly to test the durability of warships
This is almost certainly what it was. Wiki even has a photo of the USS Gerald Ford undergoing blast tests off of Ponce Inlet, and mentions that it registered as a M3.9 quake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Gerald_R._Ford#Operational...

If I had to guess, this is probably the USS John F. Kennedy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_John_F._Kennedy_(CVN-79)

(comment deleted)
I dont understand the purpose of using 40,000 lbs of TNT (0.2 kilotons) that registers as M3.9 quake - what kind of explosive payload is it simulating?

the only thing that comes to mind, is the smallest yield settings of a modern tactical nuke B61-12

Does it need to be the direct analog of any specific weapon, to be a useful test?
The structure is engineered to survive a multitude of conventional threats intact. It is testing properties of the design rather than specific weapons per se. Also, these tests are intended to be non-destructive which impacts their design.

Exercises where the US military uses decommissioned aircraft carriers and other large ships as targets are illustrative. They are basically unsinkable. You can hit them with torpedoes, bombs, missiles, etc all day. At the end of the exercise they usually have to send over a specialized demolition crew to actually scuttle the ship. Astonishingly damage resistant.

A nuke would of course do the trick but now you are playing a different game.

People chronically underestimate how difficult it is to get enough conventional explosive on target to sink a major naval vessel, even ignoring the extensive active defenses.

Falklands war shows otherwise.
This must have maimed thousands of marine mammals.
Wait until you hear about industrialised farming, even mass production of crops are killing plenty of animals…
Is your point that that makes this better?