Talk:Thermobaric weapon

Strange Quote

It read:

"Blust create negative overpressure, enough to have human bodily lifted and thrown."

This was based on a quote from the linked PDF:

"The negative phase results in a reversed-blast wind and causes human targets to be bodily lifted and thrown."

Please add this redirect

Thermobaric explosive
Mentioned in CNN article (surprisingly, Vacuum bomb works).
~ender 2012-11-01 20:03:PM MST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.197.18 (talk)

Low Quality Content

Needs discussion

2nd opinion requested

I would like to question the quality of the article. This article provides superficial information about the topic at best. There is no detailed/indepth description of components, working or even revelant examples. For a reader who does not have any prior knowledge on this topic, it does not help create an understanding (both broad and deep). I would like to suggest marking it as poor quality and listing it under pages on important topics that need major improvement. 122.50.1.172 (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

use of the term "vacuum bomb"

There was some wording in the article which implied that the use of the term "vacuum" in relation to this type of weapon is somehow erroneous or incorrect, which I have taken out - if this is true, this was not explained or mentioned in sources used in those sections. On the contrary, the Guardian article linked at the beginning says they are called vacuum bombs simply because they "suck out" all the oxygen in the air, and the 'Mechanism' section of this article itself says that they create a "partial vacuum", followed a few paragraphs below by a quote from the US Defense Intelligence Agency which in part says: "What kills is the pressure wave, and more importantly, the subsequent rarefaction [vacuum]". I don't see how just because the rarefaction effect is only 'partial', that means the term "vacuum", especially in a colloquial sense, would be a misnomer. Calling a cleaning device that uses negative pressure to suck things up a "vacuum" is not a misnomer just because it does not literally create a perfect vacuum.

But I could be wrong! I'm in no way an expert on anything nor am I a scientist. But at the very least if someone feels like this edit should be undone, please cite a source and explain this further. thanks! Gravelove (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Nope, you're completely correct, lol. Jarnsax (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I do think the term "vacuum bomb" is slightly misleading. There was a case of a spacesuit malfunction during testing in a vacuum chamber for NASA where someone was suddenly exposed to nearly complete vacuum. He lost consciousness, but they re-pressurized the chamber within a minute & he recovered a few minutes later. So I do find it unlikely that the subsequent partial vacuum pulse of a thermobaric explosion is really equally or more deadly than the initial detonation over-pressure wave. The high pressure wave can be of much greater magnitude (even perfect vacuum is only minus 14-15 psi vs. sea level air) & I think the pressure rises more sharply than it falls (the heat is released more suddenly than it can dissipate). All in all, I suspect the vacuum aspect is somewhat overblown -- it's a real effect that contributes to the damage, but not the most damaging aspect, compared to over-pressure & total energy release. However, I don't have any sources prepared, so I'm not in a position to request edits. ~2026-29592-56 (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

International law - paragraph regarding use

Not that I personally disagree, but the statement about how they "should" be used is subjective, and shouldn't be made in Wikipedia's editorial voice... i.e it should say something like "according to....".

How they "should or should not" be used is simply (by it's nature) a moral judgement, and not an objectively determinable fact. Jarnsax (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

After reading the summary, and giving the article itself a brief skim for context, the statement isn't really justified by the source, either. It's a survey article about the legality of the weapons under different aspects of international law, and the main point of the article is that they aren't specifically addressed under existing law. It then goes on to discuss, extensively, how the weapons "may" fall under various provisions. The article uses extensive quotes, and the authors only appear to make "should" or "should not" statements in regards to the direct requirements of whichever treaty they are discussing. If this is actually directly said somewhere in the article, it's missing way too much context. Jarnsax (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

• Just to be blindingly clear, I'm not objecting to the source itself. It's an outstanding source, and someone should rewrite this whole section based on it... Wikipedia just shouldn't be saying (in it's own voice) how they "should" be used without at least some context. As it is, the statement is little more than "don't drop them near people you don't intend to kill" with the unstated implication "don't kill civilians." Jarnsax (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, talking to myself. I found where it came from. What our article says now is basically just a slightly chopped down cut-paste of the final sentence of the source... "Thermobaric weapons, as with any other heavy explosive weapon, should thus, wherever possible, be avoided in urban or populated areas, as the multiple mechanisms which they employ to inflict harm, and their dispersed wide-area effects, make it extremely difficult to adequately mitigate or appreciably reduce their harmful effects on civilians" became "don't do that because they really big damn bombs." Context matters, and too much of it got cut out... Jarnsax (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2026 (UTC)