NEWS: 700 Ton Explosive to Send Mushroom Cloud Over Vegas

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

What actually purpose would America have for a larger nuclear bomb? When has the Bush administration proposed such a thing? More to the point, even tactical nukes are useless as America would not be able to use them on Iran and be able to justify it politically.

America does have a whole lot of desire to get a massive conventional bomb, though. One that could pentrate the bunkers seen in Iran and North Korea.

It's not a larger nuclear bomb. If it lives up to our speculation, it would be a nuclear bomb that does not emmit radiation. This would be revolutionary. Something as powerful as an atomic bomb without any fallout. A) Countries could not detect that it was in fact an atomic bomb, rendering satelittes designed to do so obsolete B) Troops could move in immediatly after detonation to fortify the area or clear out any remnants of the enemy without risking exposure to radiation.

The only thing that could come close to being undetectable is either a "Anti-matter bomb" or a "Pure fusion" Weapon IMO.

Anti-matter would have no nuclear tell tale signs I believe. But honestly would be be pretty adsurb when you consider even if they increased current global production by a factor of a "trillion" it could still take years to make a gram of the stuff. So unless they have billions of hidden particle accelerators pumping out the stuff I would find that very unlikely.

"Pure fusion" Weapons wouldnt have any of the long lasting nasty radiation but a above ground burst would release lots of nasty neutron radiation, I wouldn't advise going in the area of any such blast for atleast 48 hours. Thats way cleaner then normal nukes but still very deadly.



[edit on 30-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]

It's not a larger nuclear bomb. If it lives up to our speculation, it would be a nuclear bomb that does not emmit radiation. This would be revolutionary. Something as powerful as an atomic bomb without any fallout. A) Countries could not detect that it was in fact an atomic bomb, rendering satelittes designed to do so obsolete B) Troops could move in immediatly after detonation to fortify the area or clear out any remnants of the enemy without risking exposure to radiation.

Besides the fact that such a thing is pretty much impossible...A test like that would never be made public like this one.

Shadow, the point is though that this may be a completly new kind of device, just like the nuclear bomb in 1945. It may not fit into our current definitions of what explosives of are capable of.

It's nice to see that you are keeping this within the realm of reason...I mean, it's not wild speculation to make such a claim...

I really wish people would take the time to read...

The US is not going after a bigger bomb, nor some magical radiationless bomb (speculate away though) they want a smaller - lower yield - nuclear bomb to justify using it "in the field".
.

[edit on 3/30/2006 by Gools]

I do not believe these Iranian war games have anything to do with "trying to intimidate the enemy" but more so as training exercises to have their soldiers ready for war. Rest assured if anyone begins an airstrike they will be in the air waiting for the attack as well ready to make a counter-strike.

I would like to see this explosion recorded. Perhaps they will release aerial footage of it? At worst I know we can expect amateur camera setup to catch the mushroom in progress. Matter of fact I have some vacation time available, perhaps I will take a week off to visit Vegas and record my own footage in June.

Anyone here from Vegas might show me around town when I head out?

Which is the completely opposite of this test...

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
It's nice to see that you are keeping this within the realm of reason...I mean, it's not wild speculation to make such a claim...

you're saying that any kind of new technology is impossible and should be immediatley dismissed. Don't be so closed minded Disturbed.

No, I would prefer not to speculate. That is simply illogical. I'm sure there's about a 1 and a trillion chance of that being the case. I'd prefer to deal with what's likely.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
No, I would prefer not to speculate. That is simply illogical. I'm sure there's about a 1 and a trillion chance of that being the case. I'd prefer to deal with what's likely.

Tell me how it's illogical...tell me how it is simply impossible for the US to have the capability to create a bomb that has the power of a nuclear weapon yet doesn't emit radiation. Look at some of the things people have called "impossible" or shot down in the past:

87 Incorrect Predictions About The Future

It's illogical because such a weapon would being tested would not be hyped to the public. Russia wouldn't be warned of the test. It would be as secret as possible, as were the original nuke tests.

Except the original nuke tests were done in the exact same area...so your veil of secrecy theory doesn't exactly ring true.

The area has nothing to do with it. No one knew about the nuclear tests. They were kept entirely secret. There weren't press releasings warning people, let alone other nations about them.

Actually both Churchill and Stalin were notified about the tests.

There is A LOT of miscommunication going on here. This is how rumors get started.

Let's clear things up by starting with what will be readily confirmed by anyone who observes the test from Vegas.

A device is going to be tested that will create a large explosion and a mushroom cloud.

This device will be tested in the open.

This device is said not to be nuclear.

This device is said to weight 700 tons.

OK that's what we know.

Now for inferences:

1. IF this bomb IS nuclear then one of two things must be true:
A. It will be detectable as such to the Russians, and the US will be caught in violation of the test-ban treaty.
B. To avoid A, the bomb would have to produce no significant radiation or fallout.

That is where the discussion of "radiationless bombs" came from. The combination of a non-nuclear statement, the openness of the test, and the suspicion that it might actually be a nuclear test lead us to infer that one of the above 2 items must be true.

2. IF this bomb weighs 700 tons, it is probably conventional because the US isn't looking for huge nukes, and there is an upper bound to how much fuel can be consumed before the explosive force has redistributed the fuel into a less dense, non-critical mass. IF this bomb IS a nuke, it doesn't weight 700 tons.

People have been getting the idea in their heads that the bomb is BOTH 700 tons AND possibly nuclear. It's one or the other. 700 tons could be a lie to cover the nuclear aspect, or 700 tons could be true and it's virtually impossible that it's a nuke.


The US quest for smaller, more efficient nuclear weapons, if it is connected to this, would lead one to infer that if that is correct, the bomb is NOT 700 tons, and is EXTREMELY efficient, if not completely undetectable. If those things are not true, but it IS nuclear, then the US is going to get caught in a big lie and have some politcal fallout to handle.

If it is not connected to this, the bomb could still be smaller and exotic, OR it could be large, and just a plain old everyday record breaking fuel-air reaction.

That is where the discussion of "radiationless bombs" came from. The combination of a non-nuclear statement, the openness of the test, and the suspicion that it might actually be a nuclear test lead us to infer that one of the above 2 items must be true.

Or, more likely, that it simply isn't a nuclear test of any kind.

People have been getting the idea in their heads that the bomb is BOTH 700 tons AND possibly nuclear. It's one or the other. 700 tons could be a lie to cover the nuclear aspect, or 700 tons could be true and it's virtually impossible that it's a nuke.

A mini-nuke with that high of a payload doesn't seem likely at all. What purpose would America have for that sort of payload from a mini-nuke? Why would America want a nuclear bomb of that size? What are the odds it is even possible?

There's a difference between open-minded and wild speculation.

Thank you Vagabond for that clarification, I think we all needed it.

But, perhaps in the early of stages of testing, a non-radiation WMD might have to be that large. Possibly because of elements/materials/devices used to inhibit the reaction. Just a thought.

Disturbed you aren't even reading this carefully are you. Pay VERY close attention here and concentrate really hard: I'M SURE this is not beyond you.

I've already explained that WE HAVE BEEN TOLD, but have no objective way of knowing, the actual payload or nature of the weapon.

IT MIGHT be 700 tons, OR IT MIGHT NOT.
It MIGHT be convention, OR IT MIGHT NOT.

IF it is 700 tons, THEN it is conventional.

IF it is NOT 700 tons, (but still gives the big mushroom cloud, etc) THEN it's probably nuclear or something else exotic.

We're talking about 2 contrasting possibilities, get it???

I've already explained that WE HAVE BEEN TOLD, but have no objective way of knowing, the actual payload or nature of the weapon.

The problem is, if they are saying it is a 700 ton explosive, it would be most logical to assume that whatever the weapon is, it is giving off a payload which they can only pass off as coming from a 700 ton explosive. Why else leak that information?