Since the start of the military campaign against Iran on February 28, the skies above the country have been filled with fire and smoke, yet the most dangerous explosions may not be the ones on the ground. Videos of strikes have flooded social media, often accompanied by misleading claims that escalate fear and confusion. Some posts even suggested the use of nuclear weapons, an assertion experts call not only false but astonishingly irresponsible. Dr NR Jenzen-Jones, Director of Armament Research Services, emphasized that mushroom clouds visible in some footage are not exclusive to nuclear detonations; they can form when hot gases from conventional explosions rise and collide with colder, denser air.
Misunderstanding explosives is common, particularly for munitions like fuel-air explosives and thermobaric weapons. Joe Dyke, director of programmes at Airwars, explained that misidentification can be accidental due to a lack of technical knowledge, but more often it is deliberate, with posts designed to shift responsibility for strikes or spread sensational claims. Even trained observers can struggle to distinguish the effects of different explosives, a challenge compounded when videos are taken out of context or edited.
Explosives work by releasing energy rapidly, creating pressure waves that can injure or kill and send debris flying. High explosives, such as those used in warheads, differ from low explosives like rocket propellants in that their detonation occurs supersonically, generating temperatures above 3,000 degrees Celsius in milliseconds. The resulting shockwave can be seen before the sound of the blast reaches observers, pushing air outward in a positive phase and creating suction in the negative phase. Understanding these dynamics allows investigators to estimate the scale of a blast, as in the Beirut port explosion of 2020.
Reactive materials like aluminum are often added to enhance energy output, producing visible sparks or flames outside the main fireball. However, the size of a fireball is not always indicative of explosive power; staged demonstrations in films and airshows often exaggerate visuals with minimal destructive force. Thermobaric explosives extend the duration of the blast and are designed to penetrate bunkers or caves, but contrary to viral claims, they do not “suck the air from lungs” or incinerate victims. Their effects are largely similar to conventional explosives, with differences in pressure wave duration and range. Fuel-air explosives operate similarly but disperse fuel clouds before detonation, demonstrating how nuanced variations in explosive chemistry can drastically change visual effects.
Dense Inert Metal Explosives, or DIME, are another source of misreported narratives. Often alleged in Gaza since 2006, DIME bombs are designed to reduce collateral damage while increasing localized blast power by replacing steel casings with carbon fiber and adding non-reactive metals like tungsten. While the U.S. has deployed DIME-filled GBU-39A/B bombs, investigations by Bellingcat found no evidence of DIME use by any other military in recent conflicts. Misattributed claims often point to microscopic shrapnel or tungsten “tattooing” as proof, but these effects can also occur from conventional munitions.
Visual clues, such as the shape of explosion clouds and the color of smoke, are often misinterpreted. Condensation clouds, or Wilson clouds, appear when shockwaves interact with humid air, a phenomenon seen in both Gaza and Beirut. Smoke color can indicate chemical composition: black smoke often suggests incomplete detonation, while white or light grey smoke points to efficient high-grade explosives. Context is essential, as buildings, weather conditions, and explosive mixtures all influence the appearance of blasts. Misinterpretation of these visual cues has fueled rumors about unconventional or illegal weapons, including “sonic weapons” or total human disintegration.
Blast injuries are complex and terrifying. Primary effects result from shockwaves that strain human tissue, causing tearing, internal bleeding, and symptoms like vertigo and bleeding from ears. Secondary injuries are inflicted by fragments, which can break bones or cause fatal wounds even hundreds of meters away. For those close to large detonations, “total body disruption” is a clinical reality, not a mythical effect. Thermal injuries are often secondary to the blast, with heat posing significant risk primarily in confined spaces or when fires continue after detonation. These realities are frequently misrepresented or exaggerated in viral posts, creating panic and confusion.
Questions of legality compound the confusion. Thermobaric and DIME weapons are lawful under international humanitarian law if used proportionately and with discrimination, experts note. Michael Meier, former Senior Advisor to the Army Judge Advocate General, stresses that lawful weapons can still be used unlawfully, particularly when civilians are targeted. Dr Arthur van Coller, an international law professor, adds that weapons causing immense destruction may remain legally permissible, even nuclear arms, if they conform to legal definitions, highlighting the tension between humanitarian concerns and military operations.
As the conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere continue, the combination of sophisticated weaponry, incomplete information, and deliberate disinformation has created a new battlefield online. Understanding the science behind explosives, from shockwaves to smoke colors, is essential to separating fact from fear. While videos of destruction will continue to circulate, experts insist that careful analysis is crucial: misinterpreting explosions not only spreads panic but also risks distorting the truth of war and its consequences.
In a world where a mushroom cloud can spark viral speculation as quickly as it forms, distinguishing evidence from myth is more than an academic exercise—it is a matter of public clarity, safety, and accountability. The destructive power of explosives is real, but so too is the damage caused by misinformation. By focusing on verified science and measured reporting, the global community can begin to counter the viral spread of fear and ensure that the world reacts to conflict with understanding, not panic.
