Detonating packages "as a precaution"

October 21, 2005 6:57 PM

What does it mean to detonate a suspicious package "as a precaution?" If for some reason the bomb threat is not a hoax, wouldn't the detonation set off the real bomb that's inside? Shouldn't they do this sort of thing, y'know, far away from the Capitol building?
posted by Saucy Intruder to science & nature (7 comments total)

They usually send a robot in to put the "suspicious package" in a metal box, and then they blow it up, in the metal box. They don't want to risk touching it, in case it really is a bomb.
posted by interrobang at 7:02 PM on October 21, 2005

Controlled vs. uncontrolled explosion.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 7:38 PM on October 21, 2005

Also, most (commercial) explosives are rather stable, which means that blowing up the "bomb" with a much smaller bomb can be much safer than attempting to defuse the thing.
posted by nmiell at 7:43 PM on October 21, 2005

What is the alternative to a detonation that you think sounds more like commonsense?

In reply, I'd say that because no-one will be nearby during the detonation, it doesn't matter whether it's a real bomb or not - no one is going to be hurt either way, and afterwards, there is no-longer a bombthreat :)
Capital buildings are nice and all, but they're just stuff. Part of Stuff is that it periodically needs to get rebuilt or thrown out :)

Robots can't usually defuse bombs. The best they can do is move it to the nearest location suitable for detonating it. Sometimes they can't even do that.

Well, some robots do defuse bombs: the operator might use an x-ray to see into the bomb, and a shotgun to blow out the batteries, but this is essentially the same as a controlled detonation, because it could result in an explosion. And you can probably only do it if you have some way to look inside the bomb, (which I imagine isn't often the case).
posted by -harlequin- at 8:54 PM on October 21, 2005

Also, depending on the explosive used, blowing up the bomb may very well destroy the arming/firing mechanism without actually detonating the original bomb. Remember The Peacemaker? "You're going to blow up the bomb?" The idea was to make the explosive part of the bomb destroy the nuclear detonation part.
posted by attercoppe at 10:11 PM on October 21, 2005

Actually, in The Peacemaker, they were removing one piece of the explosive shell that is used to implode the nuclear material. Think of it as a ball of nuclear material surrounded by a soccer ball of C4. By removing one "wedge" as it were, the explosion was not even and could not cause the required compaction of the nuclear material to start a reaction. Instead you just have a huge explosion of C4 and the nuclear material stays in a non-critical state. I'm sure it cause it to vaporize into the air, but that's better than a thermo-nuclear explosion in the city.
posted by qwip at 1:33 AM on October 22, 2005

One technique that is used to destroy bombs is to use a "disruptor" that shoots either a jet of water or a slug through a bomb to destroy it without it going off.
posted by i love cheese at 6:11 AM on October 22, 2005