<p>08/15/1950 Assam, tibet, 8.9 magnitude. according to the USGS, <a href="https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/browse/largest-world.php" rel="noreferrer">https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/browse/largest-world.php</a></p>

<p>Note you are talking about a very small window of time there are only 5 earthquakes of 9.0 or greater within that time frame. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-12-10T22:19:44.967Z
Is there any more distant past earthquake known for being particularly remarkable not a megathrust?  It's not in his time range, but would still round out the answer nicely if you have one in mind :)
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-12-10T22:41:36.867Z
the new madrid quake in Missouri was estimated around 7.5-7.9,  the problem is estimating the size of an earthquake becomes very hard once you go back before recording equipment and photographs. without a direct record estimations can be very unreliable.
John
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-12-10T22:47:02.477Z
As someone mentioned in another question the chicxulub impact probably generated a magnitude 13 quake.
John
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-12-10T23:00:12.327Z
For those wondering, here's one answer relating to that: [Are Richter-magnitude 10 earthquakes possible?](https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/a/879/6298)
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-12-11T05:59:50.093Z
Thank you. I am "writing" this article: https://physics.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Granpa/Weather#Tsunami_height so I wanted to know how big other types can get. I also happen to live directly on top of the big one. USGS says The largest instrumentally recorded Himalaya earthquake occurred on 15th August 1950 in Assam, eastern India. This M8.6 right-lateral, strike-slip, earthquake was widely felt over a broad area of central Asia, causing extensive damage to villages in the epicentral region.
R. Emery
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-12-11T06:15:21.440Z
Another 8.6 strike slip earthquake: http://www.tectonics.caltech.edu/outreach/highlights/maze/ Its interesting that both occured in convergence zones
R. Emery
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-12-11T21:04:05.917Z
@R.Emery most of the largest earthquakes are at convergent boundaries, thats where two massive slabs a rock are being pushed together. it kinda makes sense those would be the most volatile conditions.
John
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-12-10T21:24:16.993Z
2018-12-10T21:24:16.993Z
John
<p>Whats the largest earthquake since 1900 that was not in a subduction zone (not a megathrust).</p>

<p>Wikipedia says that Since 1900, all earthquakes of magnitude 9.0 or greater have been megathrust earthquakes. No other type of known terrestrial source of tectonic activity has produced earthquakes of this scale.</p>

<earthquakes>
largest earthquake not in a subduction zone
R. Emery
# largest earthquake not in a subduction zone

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-12-10)

Whats the largest earthquake since 1900 that was not in a subduction zone (not a megathrust).

Wikipedia says that Since 1900, all earthquakes of magnitude 9.0 or greater have been megathrust earthquakes. No other type of known terrestrial source of tectonic activity has produced earthquakes of this scale.

**Tags:** earthquakes


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2018-12-10. Score: 6 | Accepted answer

08/15/1950 Assam, tibet, 8.9 magnitude. according to the USGS, <https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/browse/largest-world.php>

Note you are talking about a very small window of time there are only 5 earthquakes of 9.0 or greater within that time frame.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Is there any more distant past earthquake known for being particularly remarkable not a megathrust?  It's not in his time range, but would still round out the answer nicely if you have one in mind :)  
> **username_1**: the new madrid quake in Missouri was estimated around 7.5-7.9,  the problem is estimating the size of an earthquake becomes very hard once you go back before recording equipment and photographs. without a direct record estimations can be very unreliable.  
> **username_1**: As someone mentioned in another question the chicxulub impact probably generated a magnitude 13 quake.  
> **username_2**: For those wondering, here's one answer relating to that: [Are Richter-magnitude 10 earthquakes possible?](https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/a/879/6298)  
> **username_0**: Thank you. I am "writing" this article: https://physics.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Granpa/Weather#Tsunami_height so I wanted to know how big other types can get. I also happen to live directly on top of the big one. USGS says The largest instrumentally recorded Himalaya earthquake occurred on 15th August 1950 in Assam, eastern India. This M8.6 right-lateral, strike-slip, earthquake was widely felt over a broad area of central Asia, causing extensive damage to villages in the epicentral region.  
> **username_0**: Another 8.6 strike slip earthquake: http://www.tectonics.caltech.edu/outreach/highlights/maze/ Its interesting that both occured in convergence zones  
> **username_1**: @R.username_0 most of the largest earthquakes are at convergent boundaries, thats where two massive slabs a rock are being pushed together. it kinda makes sense those would be the most volatile conditions.  

---

