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.

 

Document Confirms B-21 To Be Delivered Optionally Manned And Nuclear Capable

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 04:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

No evidence of shying away from Nukes, in fact most evidence is on the contrary, with strategic spending being increased by 11 percent in the 2018 U.S budget.

B-21 is defined as a strategic bomber, the very use of the word 'strategic' means nuclear.

The problem with ICBMs or even sea launched non ballistic weapons is that you can't fire them without the very high risk of a misinformed retaliatory strike from Russia/China.

A stealth platform dropping one warhead in response to a strike on Guam.....much easier!

As for "anti-matter weapons from space", that's sci-fi and will remain so for a very long time.

Cheers
Robbie




posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blackfinger
There has been unconfirmed and hushed words of antimatter weapons from space that does the job with far less collateral damage.


As the above poster mentioned, this technology is way beyond us. It's not even in the realm of "well whatever's public, the military has something 3 steps ahead of it". Our public antimatter technology is so limited that it would take billions of years to produce enough for a bomb. Even if the military's was ten times better, do the math.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Who said anything about a bomb, or from space?



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I wouldn't completely rule out Anti-matter. There was a lecture by a professor/scientist stating they had found a much easier way to produce anti-matter which was public several years ago, but it was soon taken down/went black. There was also a marine leader (I believe) who mentioned it during a speech as one of the key areas of interest. I have also read an official pdf of a proposed future UAV using antimatter to power it's directed energy weapon...

To this day I think about the Dugway Directed Energy Test... something produced the energy for the beam. Very well could be nuclear/ standard generators but would have to be separate from the public energy grid to not cause a spike noticed by the general public on the same circuit, part of me has always wondered. When you get into looking at antimatter generated energy weapons, it's a pretty deep rabbit hole.

That said, I hope to god antimatter is out of our reach. The last thing we need is an antimatter weapons race. Until we learn not to blow ourselves/our planet up, I hope it stays that way. Would be huge for space exploration, but I do not trust our race to not destroy every person on earth before doing so.

~Winter



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Winterpain
I wouldn't completely rule out Anti-matter......
To this day I think about the Dugway Directed Energy Test... something produced the energy for the beam. Very well could be nuclear/ standard generators but ~Winter

Nope I wouldn't rule it out either, something gave those UFO amateur photographers a nasty dose of radiation/X rays. Pretty sure there is a contributor on here who has mentioned that incident recently in a first person like context.



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   
www.latimes.com...
"A Top Secret desert assembly plant starts ramping up to build Northrup's B-21 bomber"



the article states the bomber may be either manned or unmanned (as necessity dictates) the crewless mode will allow for longer lingering over enemy, fewer sorties & holding enemy hostage for longer...

see the well detailed article for better knowledge



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 05:31 PM
link   


"A Top Secret desert assembly plant starts ramping up to build Northrup's B-21 bomber"

Hahahahaha I love how they gave a map and a name to the article...



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 06:42 PM
link   
If you were using it as a stealthy unmanned battlefield management type system you could use its payload bay for additional fuel cells to extend its loiter time?



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Forensick




posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: stratsys-sws
a reply to: Blackfinger

No evidence of shying away from Nukes, in fact most evidence is on the contrary, with strategic spending being increased by 11 percent in the 2018 U.S budget.

B-21 is defined as a strategic bomber, the very use of the word 'strategic' means nuclear.

The problem with ICBMs or even sea launched non ballistic weapons is that you can't fire them without the very high risk of a misinformed retaliatory strike from Russia/China.

A stealth platform dropping one warhead in response to a strike on Guam.....much easier!

As for "anti-matter weapons from space", that's sci-fi and will remain so for a very long time.

Cheers
Robbie




I heard William Perry say we should abandon ICBMs. I never did catch the logic behind it, but your comment is probably the reason.

Regarding nuclear capable, there is some deal about nuclear capable planes being verified from satellite. That is a treaty verification.



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 04:54 AM
link   
a reply to: gariac

Exactly Gariac, ICBMs are of course strategic, but their use is limited to purely last resort options...the only real strategic value is their deterrence.

A smaller, mobile and verifiable asset used in a purely strategic...i.e. outcome changing...instance is a true strategic weapon that you can actually use and win with.

As for antimatter weapons, and forgive me if this is dragging things off course for this thread...but it's simple maths plus logic plus budget.

The maths of production are well known, I studied quantum mechanics and particle physics as part of a degree, to produce enough antimatter and store it for long enough to produce the amount required for a useful weapon is just not possible currently... but we can argue all day on that I guess.
Budget...where does the money come from and who does it go to, it would be on a scale similar to that of the atomic weapons program, both in terms of finance and the number of people. This isn't something that get's developed in a hush hush lab by a few people based on well known methods and theory. Particle Physicists are all academics, there are simply not enough of them to be able to hide 'an easy way to produce antimatter' without the rest of the scientific world knowing it is at least possible.
Logic - why? We could build 100 megaton triple stage thermonuclear bombs but we don't as they are pointless for anything other than presidents willy wangling at each other, so it's not destructive power. Delivery...nope....a device capable of storing antimatter would be far larger than a modern tactical nuclear weapon. Longevity...nope...antimatter storage is still measured in minutes. Cleanliness....maybe...but we've got neutron weapons for that.I guess that's not too important when you've got to a stage where the only option is nuclear.

All of that aside, there is no evidence whatsoever of a reduction in nuclear weapons programs...far from it and no evidence of a weaponised antimatter device.

Cheers
Robbie



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 05:05 AM
link   
You know, forget it. If it's not published it obviously doesn't exist.
edit on 11/13/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Will it have SWARM tech ,you think?
For drones?

I bet LASERS are a given...



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 05:10 AM
link   
a reply to: stratsys-sws

What about Russia's LAST HAND idea?



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 05:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Hi Zaphod,

It's unlike you to assume, patronise and belittle in one sentence.....as someone I respect on this forum I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow?

You don't need to guess that "I know what I know" ....clearly, I know what I know... as do we all.

That said..I won't make any assumptions on your scientific knowledge, reading or access, positively or negatively. However, unlike you I have worked for and with our version of your DARPA for many years, I do know a little bit about this stuff...perhaps have a look at my avatar...which has never changed.

However, I admit that it's unlikely that I would take the ramblings of 'more obscure papers' over some very specialised knowledge, logic and reasoning. In the same way I dismiss such ramblings on Aurora, TR3-B, Chemtrails....etc, I'm far too long in the tooth for that.

As for what I read, and where I get my knowledge, I'm happy with my current list thanks.

Perhaps this should be in a different thread?

Cheers
Robbie



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 06:00 AM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Hi cavtrooper7

Sorry not sure about last hand...but could you be referring to dead hand? I'm not saying that it exists/did exist but that's the whole point of ICBMs....last resort stuff that may well trigger the use of such hypothetical systems.

Cheers
Robbie



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 06:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
You know, forget it. If it's not published it obviously doesn't exist.


I've used a quote this time just in case the post is changed after a reply is made again.

I obviously have offended, no idea why. I have used no more direct or opinionated language than you do when someone is talking about B1-B or similar.
I know of many things that exist that are 'not published', again an incredibly sarcastic and patronising post which I see serves no purpose.

Are you trying to suggest that you know that anti-matter beam weapons exist, or deliverable laser based systems exist that can generate enough antimatter in a short enough time to be weaponised, if so then please educate us!



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 06:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Who said anything about a bomb, or from space?


The person who originally mentioned anti-matter weapons



originally posted by: Blackfinger There has been unconfirmed and hushed words of antimatter weapons from space that does the job with far less collateral damage.


Cheers
Robbie
edit on 13-11-2017 by stratsys-sws because: typo



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: stratsys-sws

You didn't offend at all. I'm just tired of years of hearing from people that something can't be done, largely because there's nothing published about it, and it's outside the box. It's simply reached the point where I don't feel like arguing about it anymore.



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: stratsys-sws

You didn't offend at all. I'm just tired of years of hearing from people that something can't be done, largely because there's nothing published about it, and it's outside the box. It's simply reached the point where I don't feel like arguing about it anymore.


Thanks, and I'm glad I didn't as an offence was never intended. I love your work on here.

I know exactly what you mean, I agree with you on many points and I would never say that just because something is not published it did not happen. I don't mention my career on here for various reasons but having spent a lot of time with the likes of dstl doing things that have not been done yet and are by their vary existence a result of 'out of the box' I know of lots of things that very definitely exist that are not published in the public domain!

I also know of lots of speculation about Dugway, about Ken Edwards' presentation etc etc but for now anti matter bombs and directed energy weapons are sci-fi. I'm not saying they will never happen, I believe given enough time everything will happen...within the laws of physics :-)

As for other DEWs that do not use antimatter as the primary affector....who knows :-)

Cheers
Robbie



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join