Some Christmas trivia

2–3 minutes
<< Three locks for the price of oneNew Year’s Resolutions >>

Nollaig Shona and Merry Christmas wherever you are reading this. I’m taking a break for the next two weeks to spend time relaxing with family and friends. I sincerely hope that you are doing likewise.

Knowing in advance that I would be scarfing down chocolate like nobody’s business, I decided to do a quick side-by-side comparison of the energy potential of chocolate vs. some of our favourite high explosives.

As always, please subscribe and comment below!

You might not know this, but the sweets you’re munching on right now have quite a lot of energy in them. In fact, they are comparative to some high and low explosives:

A visual comparison highlights that Christmas chocolates, such as Heroes and Twirls, contain energy levels comparable to various munitions including a shell, grenade, and ammunition.

This is all pretty approximate, of course, taking the average energy per 100 g of chocolate as per the nutritional information on the box (I had to open one for research purposes, of course). Chocolates contain about three to four times more energy as explosives on a per-weight basis.

So, should you go out on start using chocolate bombs and bullets? Not quite. For one, it’s Christmas, and you shouldn’t be coming up with new weapons designs right now. More importantly, however, is that chocolate (or any food) releases its energy into the body at a much slower rate than explosives react:

A bar graph comparing the energy release time of various substances, including chocolates and different types of explosives. The graph shows the slowest energy release for sweets and the fastest for high explosives and nuclear reactions, with a logarithmic scale indicated.

It’s all about the rate of energy release. Nuclear reactions happen over nanoseconds, high explosives take microseconds to react, propellants in guns are a thousand times slower still, and food takes anywhere from minutes to decades to convert all its chemical energy to useful work.

This is why explosives are such important and, dare I say, useful chemicals—for peaceful purposes as well as wartime ones, although I must admit that their nefarious use often dominates.

So enjoy your turkey and ham, your mince pies, and your sweets: you’re giving your body more fuel than you would get from high explosives, but thankfully over a much longer time period.

I’ll leave you with a picture of ChatGPT’s finest bomb disposal operator trying to disarm these highly dangerous chocolate sweets.

A bomb disposal expert in protective gear carefully examines a tin of Cadbury Roses chocolates while using wire cutters.

Happy Christmas all, thanks for your support and engagement in 2025, and I wish you and yours the very best for 2026. I’ll see you then.

A scene featuring a character in a black leather jacket and sunglasses saying 'I'LL BE BACK.'

Cover picture: We counted every chocolate in Quality Street, Roses, Heroes, and Celebrations, The Mirror, 21st Dec 2024

11 responses to “Explosive selection boxes”

  1. Larry deCleir Avatar

    I had a vague memory of a Wonka Xploder Bar – so I Googled it – yes, it did exist!!

    1. The Director Avatar

      Haha brilliant, they were more right than they realised!

  2. […] Christmas Chocolate vs. Explosives: An Energy Comparison December 25, 2025 at 8:34 am […]

  3. Loren Pechtel Avatar

    To take this a little farther–explosives give the impression of being powerful but they turn in some pretty poor numbers when compared to plain old gasoline. Compare the energy of a 2000# iron bomb to your car’s gas tank.

    1. The Director Avatar

      Exactly! There’s a reason explosives haven’t been tapped for transportation purposes. Well, that and the whole sudden energy release thing.

      1. Loren Pechtel Avatar

        A proof of concept of Orion using chemical explosives has been flown. Due to the inefficiencies of explosives and the inefficiency of Orion it didn’t get very far, but it worked as expected. (But it looks like Orion would not–cooling the pusher plate turns out to be a very non-trivial problem.)

      2. The Director Avatar

        I never realised they flew with chemical explosives! But thanks to your comment I actually found the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3Lxx2VAYi8
        Fascinating stuff. As luck would have it, I am thinking about writing something on peaceful nuclear explosions, so I’ll be coming back to this. Thanks Loren!

  4. Ouje Avatar
    Ouje

    Thanks for wonderful post and merry Christmas.

    Ad topic: chocolates dont contain the oxygenator needed for “explosive” freeing the stored chemical energy.
    It is possible to make explosive from sugar, at the cost of adding the oxygenator (fertilizer in most famous cases) which skews the energy per weight ratio.

    1. The Director Avatar

      Thanks Ouje, and many happy returns. Yes indeed, the lack of oxidiser is what makes our chocs safe to eat at Christmas!

      If you mix fuel (e.g. sugar, like you say) and oxidiser then you can unlock the “quick release” energy function in both parts. Even faster is if you have fuel and oxidiser in the same molecule, e.g. TNT, RDX, etc.

  5. […] only gotten better since then. Modern propellants and high explosives contain about as much energy as some common and delicious foods, but release them much more […]

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Military Realism Report

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading