It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

This is being called a Nuke! Can someone identify this weapon? Yemen Conflict.

page: 13
28
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

zaphod you have a deep knowledge of military equipment,what are your thoughts on the interferance pattern..




posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

By the size of the explosion. And the confirmation of other people who have seen enough explosions to tell by the size of the explosion.

The one in the OP is somewhere between 3000 and 4000 kg tnt equivelent.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: stuthealien

There's radiation, but not enough even to be a clean weapon. You can get a nuclear weapon remarkably clean, but this is almost non existent.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: bharata

I imagine any nuclear device would have emitted an electromagnetic flux associated with such the detonation and process involved and fried the electronics of the camera which seems to be functioning normaly allowing him to record the explosion and associated cloud.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: mSparks43

Estimated. There are things that can make it look bigger than it is, or even smaller. That's only about 9000 pounds of explosive. Even a 0.1 kt weapon is significantly more than that.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: bharata

I imagine any nuclear device would have emitted an electromagnetic flux associated with such the detonation and process involved and fried the electronics of the camera which seems to be functioning normaly allowing him to record the explosion and associated cloud.


ive already proved in this thread at a distance of 10 km the camera would be fine,,


please review thread
edit on 2-6-2015 by stuthealien because: review



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

0.1 kt
is still 100,000kg of conventional explosive.

I don't see the relevence to anything we are talking about.
edit on 2-6-2015 by mSparks43 because: (no reason given)


How do you get 9000lbs explosion from a 900lb bomb.
edit on 2-6-2015 by mSparks43 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: stuthealien

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: stuthealien
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

how many japanese do you hear of with cancer and radiation sickness ,,not a lot thats for sure...
but we all know that their dropping like flies,,,
but we dont get told the truth,everything gets hidden beneath lie upon lie..


Uhhh... I live in Japan. Nobody I know has gotten cancer or "dropped like a fly". Nobody I know has radiation sickness either.


lolololololo ok so the worlds biggest nuclear disaster in japan has not killed or enduced cancer,haha
that stinks of cow dung
I'm sorry, do you live in Japan too?

Oh, you don't? That's nice.

One: I never said nobody died as a result of the Nuclear Accident. People have died.
Two: I never said people wouldn't get cancer from this disaster. Rather, I said nobody I know has gotten either Acute Radiation Syndrome or Cancer. Kinda throws a wrench into your whole "dropping like flies" theory.

I'm sorry you're wrong. But I live here, and I'm telling you're wrong.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: mSparks43

The point is that even a tiny nuclear explosion is much larger than an estimated 9000 pounds. A Davey Crockett, which used a tiny warhead detonated with over twice that yield on the low end.

Too small a warhead and you can't get it critical to get a nuclear reaction.



originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: Zaphod58The one in the OP is somewhere between 3000 and 4000 kg tnt equivelent.


4000 kg is 8800 pounds.
edit on 6/2/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I didn't want to comment...
but it will be 10 to 15 years before that particular horror starts to manifest itself.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Previously
too small a warhead and you can't get it critical.

That appears to no longer be true.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: mSparks43

Physics don't change just because you say they did.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

im telling you that the fukushima nuclear melt down is the worst nuclear meltdown in history,,,fact

fukushima was far worse then chernobyl,,,,,,fact


look at these figures of death toles in russia and you might get a clue of just what your country is facing

But other reputable scientists researching the most radiation-contaminated areas of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine are not convinced. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, another UN agency, predicts 16,000 deaths from Chernobyl; an assessment by the Russian academy of sciences says there have been 60,000 deaths so far in Russia and an estimated 140,000 in Ukraine and Belarus.

Meanwhile, the Belarus national academy of sciences estimates 93,000 deaths so far and 270,000 cancers, and the Ukrainian national commission for radiation protection calculates 500,000 deaths so far.

source

the japanese diasaster was far worse,,the whole world knows your goverment is lying,,,why bother denying the truth.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

So how then do you explain a F16/Block 60 dropping a 9000lb bomb?
Is that a payload they are capable of?
edit on 2-6-2015 by mSparks43 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: mSparks43

Physics don't change just because you say they did.


phsyics change all the time,einstein thought the speed of light was constant haha wrong

source



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: stuthealien
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

im telling you that the fukushima nuclear melt down is the worst nuclear meltdown in history,,,fact

fukushima was far worse then chernobyl,,,,,,fact


look at these figures of death toles in russia and you might get a clue of just what your country is facing

But other reputable scientists researching the most radiation-contaminated areas of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine are not convinced. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, another UN agency, predicts 16,000 deaths from Chernobyl; an assessment by the Russian academy of sciences says there have been 60,000 deaths so far in Russia and an estimated 140,000 in Ukraine and Belarus.

Meanwhile, the Belarus national academy of sciences estimates 93,000 deaths so far and 270,000 cancers, and the Ukrainian national commission for radiation protection calculates 500,000 deaths so far.

source

the japanese diasaster was far worse,,the whole world knows your goverment is lying,,,why bother denying the truth.

You clearly don't study nuclear science. Chernobyl was far worse than Fukushima, and the radiation contamination, while still highly significant, is no where NEAR the scale or scope of the Chernobyl disaster. Will people die from cancers related to Fukushima? Absolutely. But no where near the scale of people that died from Chernobyl. One, a disaster of that magnitude had never happened before Chernobyl, so the world was ill-prepared for how to handle it. Two, the Russian government attempted to COVER UP that the disaster even happened at all for weeks before the actually started doing anything about it. Three, exclusion zones weren't set up until well after the fallout had fallen and exposed thousands, unknowingly, to radiation poisoning.

Learn a little about history, AND nuclear science before you come in here and tell me what's happening in MY country, with your limited knowledge of what is actually happening.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
It could be something called a MOAB. basically about ten tons of dynamite rigged to explode all at once. They tested a big one a while back and you would think it was at least the size of the Nagasaki bomb.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: mSparks43

The fact that estimating the yield from a video of an explosion is an imperfect science and there were other factors making it look bigger than it was.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: stuthealien

Yes they do, but some things are not going to change. For a nuclear reaction to occur you need a certain amount of fuel. Too little and you don't get a reaction. Too much and you end up with material that doesn't react.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

this is my last response to your posts as this takes us off topic,but simply the russians incased theirs in concrete negating the effects,,japan however has done squat really,and even have contaminated the ocean,
i know far more about nuclear reactions and there effects then you clearly do.
edit on 2-6-2015 by stuthealien because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
28
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join