> chemical explosions need not involve oxygen
They do need an oxidiser though. Which may or may not involve oxygen. You’re right of course, but redox itself has some poorly chosen jargon.
They do need an oxidiser though. Which may or may not involve oxygen. You’re right of course, but redox itself has some poorly chosen jargon.
When lead azide detonates, you get elemental lead and diatomic nitrogen. So yes, the Pb++ oxidizes the azide.
When acetylene detonates, you get a mixture of organic compounds. But I don't believe that there's any redox involved. You just get various hydrocarbons with single and double carbon-carbon bonds. And just to be clear, this is when there's no oxidizing agent present.
The jargon being that an oxidiser is an substance that can accept electrons, and doesn't have to by oxygen.
There’s also an enormous continuum of timescales, all the way from the detonation of high explosives, to deflagration of low explosives, combustion of fuels, to... sedate rusting, which is just oxidation of iron or steel. YMMV.