>>4300

>it WAS a nuk

Chances are slim considering the explosion type. Compare every explosion of a nuke versus every explosion of munitions or TNT you can find.

My Guess yesterday before they came out with 2750 number was 1-3 tons based on comparisons with similar explosive force.

>>4300

>it WAS a nuk

No sauce but both an artillery army anon and armored cav anon say no to nuke theories.

Both with training for identifying this type of thing.

See >>4215

Responses re: nuke theory from veteran from sandbox. Second part was in response to some anon that said not all nukes have a pulse (EMP)

pic related

>>4311

>I like this theory pretty well too.

Yes that is more along the lines of rational thinking (expanded).