There’s nothing magical that makes certain gunpowder only ‘firecracker’ strength, small fireworks just use a very small amount of the same black powder used in old firearms and explosives. It would be silly for the cops to try to make a bomb by emptying firecrackers; since they won’t be trying to hide that they made a bomb, they could just buy black powder by the pound from a store that sells it in bulk, but that doesn’t mean that ‘firecracker’ black powder is unable to hurt someone.
I seem to recall reading they used a pound of C-4, which sounds like a hell of a lot to me.
This isn’t strictly true. Gunpowder (‘black powder’ and various so-called ‘smokeless’ single base propellants) are low energy explosives produce their exothermic reaction via deflagration, i.e. rapid burning of the external surface, hence why they are always produced in flake form. The rate of the deflagration reaction and associated flame front inherently limits the brisance (the available effective impulse which is based on the flame velocity and associated pressure differential) and therefore the felt power of the reaction. Because the reaction speed is usually at or less than the velocity of sound in the medium, a large ‘black power’ bomb will typically blow itself apart before all of the material is consumed in the primary reaction, expelling unburnt material which may (or may not) combust in a secondary reaction unless carefully confined (tamped). The speed is suffiicent to make loud noises and bright flash of combustion, especially when combined with a donor or colorant which can give various colors or additional brilliance to the reaction. Devices made with such powder can be quite dangerous, of course, especially if held in the hand or near the body, but this is largely due to the thermal effects and fragments produced from a metallic or polymer casing as the shock wave they produce is small and attenuates rapidly without confinement.
On the other hand, high explosives compounds, such as nitroglycerine (NG), trinitrotoluene (TNT), cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine (RDX), and other common demolition and ordnance-grade explosives work via detonation, which propagates a high pressure shock wave through the explosive material exceeding the speed of sound and causes the molecules to dissociate directly by applied pressure. Because the explosion isn’t limited by flame velocity or the need to achieve a threshold temperature, the detonation velocity can propagate at a higher rate and also sustain itself without confinement. This gives these materials much higher brisance and associated damage potential, and the ability to produce intense (overpressure) shock waves that can travel over significant distances, doing more damage than the thermal energy released. When formed into shapes that focus the energy or produce a jet of molten materials (shaped and cutting charges) they can do incredible damage over fairly long distances. While many of these materials are produce in a flake form or a liquid, it is typically bound up into a binder and often with a plasticizer to make it compliant and insensitive (ability to form the explosive into fixed quasi-solid shapes and reduce its propensity to detonate from shock or heat).
Explosive ordnance demolition (EOD) and special tactics and weapons (SWAT) teams will have high explosives on hand for a number of reasons. For one, the preferred method of disposing of suspected improvised explosive devices (IED) or abandand/decayed unexploded ordnance (UXO) is disruption or demolition in place. Because of the hazard that a poorly made explosive device or ordnance of unknown age and state of decomposition brings, it is often desireable from both a personnel and public safety standpoint to energetically disassembly the device or cache in such a way as to minimize damage, e.g. blowing it apart to limit the degree of detonability, or cutting away a primary charge to a secondary booster. While this is often done using a water cannon or pneumatic gun, in the case that the charge is well-protected or the cache is too large, cutting or other directed charges may be used in conjuction with protective and damping methods (applying water bags and heavy blankets to absorb the blast energy). Shaped and shattering charges may also be used to facilitate dynamic entry or as a distraction in the case of a barricaded subject to give SWAT officers access to and initiative over the subject. And of course, EOD teams have to learn to dispose of UXO by training with actual ordnance; the biggest market for the now-rare NG-based dynamite in the developed world is actually training EOD teams in identification and disposal.
It is unclear whether the Dallas police used some kind shaped charge or a ‘flash-bang’ which incidentially killed the barricades suspect (which sometimes happens; these devices can be quite dangerous even though described as ‘non-lethal’). The justification for doing so is at this point unclear but it is doubtful that they were just impatient and malicious (especially given comparisons to the Philadelphia MOVE disaster), and likely felt that the suspect’s claims of having ordnance devices hidden in public which he could detonate at will represented a greater danger than an attempt at disabling or termination with a robot-carried ordnance device. Given the actions and clear intent of the suspects to indiscriminately kill individuals with no justification, it is difficult to fault their reasoning out of hand unless further details come to light which contradict the notion that the suspect represented an immediate threat to public safety. That being said, the precident this sets for the use of ordnance devices by public safety and law enforcement organizations, as well as the use of a robot in an active combat role is concerning, and I certainly hope that explicit standards will be developed narrowly defining when such appliations are permissiable in extremis rather than a nominal tactic for barricaded suspects in general.
The standard M112 block of C-4 is 1.25 lbm. If police were concerned that the subject might be preparing to detonate IEDs and was ensconced behind a barrier, they may well have judged it necessary to use enough explosive to shatter the barricade and traumatize the suspect to assuredly incapacitate him. But without details that will doubtlessly be released in an investigation, it is somewhat irresponsible to speculate beyond that the people on site were making decisions based upon a presumed immediate and continued threat to public safety.
Stranger
When I said older explosives, I meant pre-TNT explosives, since I’d mark TNT as the start of modern explosives technology. But I was also thinking of TNT as being a 20th century invention and not an 1860s invention, if I had remembered that I would have phrased it differently.
Frankly, I sincerely hope they didn’t hide the bomb in a pizza or cell phone and if they did I hope they keep it quiet. It could have a very bad effect on future hostage situations where negotiations might lead to a peaceful end.
If they did that, I do not think they would admit it, if only to be able to use the ruse again.
Somebody page Bricker. I’m curious as to the legal implications of this.
Assets are assets. Calling in an air strike is not “unfair” or problematic than using any other asset. (Or it could be simply fucked-up, as in Philly/MOVE.)
No doubt we will see in the near future the first domestic use of a lethal blow from a UAV.
When the timing or choice of the strike is decided upon with more and more independence by the tool, then the problems begin, but until then, I don’t see the big deal.
Is the issue that the police were trying to kill him rather than arrest him?
This is no different than giving snipers the go ahead to take out a suspect. In this case they couldn’t get a sniper with eyes on the guy.
Theoretically they could have shot the suspect. The US military has remote control robots equipped with machine guns and some law enforcement agencies do too (see this article). The guns are used to shoot bombs but they could shoot a suspect too.
We’re not all that far off from ED-209.
Not to speak of the effect on Domino’s share prices.