PDA

View Full Version : Father of all Bombs


EmeraldCity
09-11-2007, 04:33 PM
http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel/5/51/511/511765/bombe5_1189537424.jpg

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jixX4YqeeXCrWvmEEv9JMABhXmVw

Russia Tests Powerful 'Dad of All Bombs'

By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV – 2 hours ago

MOSCOW (AP) — The Russian military has successfully tested what it described as the world's most powerful non-nuclear air-delivered bomb, Russia's state television reported Tuesday.

It was the latest show of Russia's military muscle amid chilly relations with the United States.

Channel One television said the new weapon, nicknamed the "dad of all bombs" is four times more powerful than the U.S. "mother of all bombs."

"The tests have shown that the new air-delivered ordnance is comparable to a nuclear weapon in its efficiency and capability," said Col.-Gen. Alexander Rukshin, a deputy chief of the Russian military's General Staff, said in televised remarks.

Unlike a nuclear weapon, the bomb doesn't hurt the environment, he added.

The statement reflected the Kremlin's efforts to restore Russia's global clout and rebuild the nation's military might while the ties with Washington have been strained over U.S. criticism of Russia's backsliding on democracy, Moscow's vociferous protests of U.S. missile defense plans, and rifts over global crises.

The U.S. Massive Ordnance Air Blast, nicknamed the Mother Of All Bombs, is a large-yield satellite-guided, air-delivered bomb described as the most powerful non-nuclear weapon in history.

Channel One said that while the Russian bomb contains 7.8 tons of high explosives compared to more than 8 tons of explosives in the U.S. bomb, it's four times more powerful because it uses a new, highly efficient type of explosives that the report didn't identify.

While the U.S. bomb is equivalent to 11 tons of TNT, the Russian one is equivalent to 44 tons of regular explosives. The Russian weapon's blast radius is 990 feet, twice as big as that of the U.S. design, the report said.

Like its U.S. predecessor, first tested in 2003, the Russian bomb is a "thermobaric" weapon that explodes in an intense fireball combined with a devastating blast. It explodes in a terrifying nuclear bomb-like mushroom cloud and wreaks destruction through a massive shock wave created by the air burst and high temperature.

Thermobaric weapons work on the same principle that causes blasts in grain elevators and other dusty places — clouds of fine particles are highly explosive. Such explosions produce shock waves that can be directed and amplified in enclosed spaces such as buildings, caves or tunnels.

Channel One said that the temperature in the epicenter of the Russian bomb's explosion is twice as high as that of the U.S. bomb.

The report showed the bomb dropped by parachute from a Tu-160 strategic bomber and exploding in a massive fireball. It featured the debris of apartment buildings and armored vehicles at a test range, as well as the scorched ground from a massive blast.

It didn't give the bomb's military name or say when it was tested.

Rukshin said the new bomb would allow the military to "protect the nation's security and confront international terrorism in any situation and any region."

"We have got a relatively cheap ordnance with a high strike power," Yuri Balyko, head of the Defense Ministry's institute in charge of weapons design, told Channel One.

Booming oil prices have allowed Russia to steadily increase military spending in recent years, and the Kremlin has taken a more assertive posture in global affairs.

Last month, President Vladimir Putin said he ordered the resumption of regular patrols of strategic bombers, which were suspended after the 1991 Soviet breakup.

I like the new eco approaching to killing people.

Tadhg Adams
09-11-2007, 04:36 PM
I thought the purpose of bombs was to hurt the environment?

Charles RB
09-11-2007, 04:37 PM
They nicknamed it "dad of all bombs" solely to sneer at the MOAB?

Is Putin next going to roll Bush for his lunch money?

EmeraldCity
09-11-2007, 04:38 PM
I thought the purpose of bombs was to hurt the environment?

not for long term.. mostly you just want to kill the currently living there

Dom
09-11-2007, 04:42 PM
I thought the purpose of bombs was to hurt the environment?

It's a paradigm shift.

Tadhg Adams
09-11-2007, 04:43 PM
It's a paradigm shift.

Are they going to start replacing shrapnel with pinecones to aid in the reforestation?

Paul McEnery
09-11-2007, 04:51 PM
They nicknamed it "dad of all bombs" solely to sneer at the MOAB?


Feh.

MOAB is my washpot.

Dom
09-11-2007, 04:53 PM
Are they going to start replacing shrapnel with pinecones to aid in the reforestation?

Don't be silly.

Apple seeds.

Black Atom
09-11-2007, 05:12 PM
I'm disheartened by the news the female bombs are destroying up to four times less than male bombs.

Serik
09-11-2007, 05:17 PM
The MOAB has to be pulled out of a C-130 on a cargo pallet with a parachute. If you want to incinerate a third world terrorist training camp, cool, but against an adversary with any real air defenses, sending a lumbering cargo aircraft to drop one of these is suicide. Smaller, precision guided bombs are better against hard targets and a B-52 can carpet bomb a larger area from a safer altitude.

Then again the Pentagon, and probably the Kremlin, use these weapons for psychological purposes more than anything.

Monty_Cristo
09-11-2007, 05:55 PM
great. now where are they on curing cancer and ending poverty?

Demon wizard
09-11-2007, 07:06 PM
great. now where are they on curing cancer and ending poverty?

Why cure cancer when you can blow it up?

darkkeeperjr
09-11-2007, 07:07 PM
Then again the Pentagon, and probably the Kremlin, use these weapons for psychological purposes more than anything.

Well they sure got me scare! with their 990 ft radius bomb.what the hell are they going to blow up? one end of oak st?

Monty_Cristo
09-11-2007, 08:21 PM
Why cure cancer when you can blow it up?

that would be cool. messy but cool.

mattx110
09-11-2007, 10:19 PM
I thought the purpose of bombs was to hurt the environment?

russia has a history of trying to separate effects of nuclear weapons like this. weather manipulation. EMP. now the bang without the ecological devestation. don't worry, they're working on a tool that can destroy all plant life and leave structurs and humans safe too.

and american nukes are just for show for the forseeable future. hopefully it'll stick to that.

Tadhg Adams
09-12-2007, 08:52 AM
In all seriousness I hope the bolded part of the original article is just a mistranslation because it annoys me. Saying it doesn't hurt the environment is fucking ridiculous. A 990 foot blast radius searing fireball tends to have a negative impact on the ecology.

Charles RB
09-12-2007, 09:31 AM
great. now where are they on curing cancer and ending poverty?

But this will end poverty!

Drop those bombs on every poor area in Russia, watch the number of people in poverty plummet...

HomerJay
09-12-2007, 09:51 AM
Saying it doesn't hurt the environment is fucking ridiculous. A 990 foot blast radius searing fireball tends to have a negative impact on the ecology.
I think they were using "environment" in the broad, generic sense that its used most often today. Will it mess up the ecology of the area? Of course. Will it screw with the environment in the nuclear winter fallout sense? No.

Tadhg Adams
09-12-2007, 09:56 AM
I think they were using "environment" in the broad, generic sense that its used most often today. Will it mess up the ecology of the area? Of course. Will it screw with the environment in the nuclear winter fallout sense? No.

I do get what they were intending to say. It just annoys me. That is all.

Drew Van T.
09-12-2007, 09:57 AM
Um, not to let too many naked facts intrude into the affair...but when have the Russians actually used this type of bombs on people? Did they use them in Afghanistan in the late 80's? If they did, I can't find any record of it. Did they use them in Chechnya in the mid 90's? Possibly, but I kind of doubt that.

Whereas the Pentagon drops a Daisy Cutter, which is the same category of bombs, on people in Afghanistan...what, a couple every year or so?

Thanos_6383
09-12-2007, 12:35 PM
http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel/5/51/511/511765/bombe5_1189537424.jpg

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jixX4YqeeXCrWvmEEv9JMABhXmVw



I like the new eco approaching to killing people.

Someone needs to lay off the Chili:D

Toku King
09-12-2007, 12:45 PM
So, they spent all of this time making the greatest bomb ever assembled, just to one-up the USA?
Wow.

Drew Van T.
09-14-2007, 01:19 AM
So, they spent all of this time making the greatest bomb ever assembled, just to one-up the USA?

For them to one-up the USA, they'd have to actually use the damn thing somewhere on people first.

FunkyGreenJerusalem
09-14-2007, 01:27 AM
So, they spent all of this time making the greatest bomb ever assembled, just to one-up the USA?
Wow.

Why do you think America put a man on the moon?

Toku King
09-16-2007, 10:47 AM
Why do you think America put a man on the moon?

So we could send Navy Seals to Rita Repulsa's castle?

Fenris
09-16-2007, 02:50 PM
In all seriousness I hope the bolded part of the original article is just a mistranslation because it annoys me. Saying it doesn't hurt the environment is fucking ridiculous. A 990 foot blast radius searing fireball tends to have a negative impact on the ecology.

Nay; if they want to destroy the environment, they'll use the Doomsday Machine (http://www.slate.com/id/2173108)!


õ
Or maybe it'll just happen!