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.

 

NEWS: 700 Ton Explosive to Send Mushroom Cloud Over Vegas

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   
This is screaming "April Fools" to me.




posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by carlwfbird
This is screaming "April Fools" to me.


Yes, because you know the United State's Military's annual detonation of 700 tons of explosive always gets a good rise out of everyone.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   
I think it makes for one hell of a show, and I would most definetly go to see it as an annual event



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnMature
Actually both Churchill and Stalin were notified about the tests.


Im pretty sure Stalin was only told after the Trinity test. They werent even sure if it was going to work and they werent going to advertise such a weapon only to have it fail with the allies watching. I think Truman even delayed a meeting with Stalin till after Trinity was done. Stalin was told by the US before the bomb was used on Japan though.

Stalin was aware of the test long before Truman told him thanks to his own "channels"



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
I think it makes for one hell of a show, and I would most definetly go to see it as an annual event


How many rads would you be willing to receive from that radioactive dirt from the 50's flying around in the air in order to watch the show?


I'll settle for Burning Man Festival, less chance of glowing in the dark.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   
I'm not a big demolition person(I prefer to get up close and personal with my enemies)So I have a few questions that maybe someone here can give us all some answers on
1.So what kind of power are we talking here?700 tons?

2.Any idea of the amount of seismic activity a explosion that big would produce?

3.Should people that live in areas in that region of the country known for earthquakes and fault lines be concerned?

My memory on weight mesurements is a bit rusty so correct me if I'm wrong but 700 tons would be 1,400,000 pounds of explosives

4.Why the hell do we need a bomb that big?



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simon_Boudreaux

1.So what kind of power are we talking here?700 tons?



700 tons equals (.7 KT) Tiny if it was nuke.

Little Boy, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan on August 6, 1945. = (13 KT) or 13,000 tons of TNT

Tsar Bomba 1961 Russia = (50 MT) 50,000,000 tons of TNT

Theres been larger man made non nuclear explosions

Seymour Narrows, British Columbia 1958. 1,375 tons of chemical explosives so that was (1.375 kilotons)

Mount St. Helen came in at (24MT) 24,000,000 tons of TNT



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by Simon_Boudreaux

1.So what kind of power are we talking here?700 tons?



700 tons equals (.7 KT) Tiny if it was nuke.

Little Boy, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan on August 6, 1945. = (13 KT) or 13,000 tons of TNT

Tsar Bomba 1961 Russia = (50 MT) 50,000,000 tons of TNT

Theres been larger man made non nuclear explosions

Seymour Narrows, British Columbia 1958. 1,375 tons of chemical explosives so that was (1.375 kilotons)

Mount St. Helen came in at (24MT) 24,000,000 tons of TNT



So basically it'll just be a big boom followed by some smoke?Nothing that people in Nevada should be worried about?

What of the radioactive dirt from previous testing that someone mentioned?Any worries there?



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   
I personally wouldnt be worried there is nothing too indicate any radioactive parts in this bomb just a big conventional one.

We have blown up old school dirty nukes hundreds of times more powerful in Nevada before. I know in 1951 we tested a 225 KT bomb in Nevada from a 200ft tower that would be 225,000 tons and very dirty compared to this 700 ton conventional blast.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   

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


Since when do ONLY nuclear or toxic explosives give off mushroom clouds?

MOAB- 21,000 pound conventional explosive.



FAE- Fuel Air Explosive (Non-nuclear)



The might not be the perfect mushroom cloud from a nuke, but they're still considered mushroom clouds.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 01:39 AM
link   
i think what some people are getting at is : they are testing this at the above ground nuclear test site , and as such are concerned that any radioactivity from the tests 50 years ago *could* be sucked up into the air.


This does smack of `do as i say , not do as i do though` - and why , oh why does it seem that the usa wants to rule the world



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 01:44 AM
link   
1.4 million pounds of explosive!? (Thanks Shadow!)

Tiny for a nuke, sure. But a pretty big boom for convention explosives; even if it isn't the largest conventional "pop" to have been tried.

But I'm still wondering; What is it good for? What purpose is it meant to serve?

As a convential weapon, it's too big to effectively deploy isn't it? How would you deliver a bomb that weighed 700 tons? Do we have a plane that could drop such a bomb, if it is a bomb?

Maybe deliver it by ocean-going barge? but that kinda limits the available targets doesn't it?

As far as this being an attempt to scare Iran, well how effective is rattling your saber if it's obvious that you can't get your saber out of its scabbard because it weighs too much to lift?


I'm sure Iran will be mighty afraid of a weapon that's so cumbersome that we can't effectively use it against them????


Perhaps the military is just disposing of old stock? But why blow it all at once? Kind of risky and excessive don't you think?

So maybe it is a new kind of low-yield , clean(er) nuke. Perhaps, Russia/China are in on the ruse. So we don't care if they can tell the blast was from a nuke, they've already been briefed...maybe they helped? Perhaps this is just a cover story to prevent public panic?

Consider, you've got a new "bunker-buster" nuke that you've tested as far a you could without actually trying it out in "As Delivered" mode: lots of new/adapted technology at stake, so you can't risk its first test to be in the heat of battle.

Think what would happen if something went wrong; instead of detonating in the mountains of Iran, the thing sticks tail-up 3 feet in the dirt with your latest Nuke design secrets exposed before the world and Allah!

Then again, maybe it's an Anti-matter bomb....OOOOH!


[edit on 31-3-2006 by Bhadhidar]



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
1.4 million tons of explosive!?



Not 1.4 million tons that would be (1.4 MT) thats huge. I think you meant pounds maybe?

Its (.7KT) 700 tons

If it was antimatter it would have to be only a small fraction of a ounce of the stuff. 1 ounce would equal 1.22 (MT) thousands of times more powerful then this bomb in question.

[edit on 31-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
1.4 million tons of explosive!?



Not 1.4 million tons that would be (1.4 MT) thats huge. I think you meant pounds maybe?

Its (.7KT) 700 tons

If it was antimatter it would have to be only a small fraction of a ounce of the stuff. 1 ounce would equal 1.22 (MT) thousands of times more powerful then this bomb in question.

[edit on 31-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]


Yes, I meant to say pounds. Never type while tired I should, sheesh!

Just kidding about the possibility of A/M bomb, thought I'd give the "Tin-Foil Hat" crowd a tickle.

I must say though, that this event does have me puzzled. I just can't get my head around a good purpose for the size/location.

Of course, the older I get the more easily I tend to be confused by the things folks do.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 02:24 AM
link   
It is a interesting event.

It could be a way to test the non-radiation effects of a small nuke without breaking the Test ban treaty. Or perhaps they have plans for some convential weapon that makes the MOAB look small.

Or it could be a bunch of bored EOD guys with a bunch of old military TNT they need to get rid of



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 02:28 AM
link   
the most obvious answer is they want to see what a 7 tenths of a kiloton explosion would do to any subsurface installations....

Other answers range down the scale of possibillities... for instance i have a popular mechanics from last year detailling very briefly an advance in chemical explosive compounds that is significantly more powerful than traditional conventional explosives... maybe this is an updated moab? Or it could be this or that.

However barring people with meters to measure peak radiation immediatelly after the blast I am seriously doubting we'd touch off a fusion/fission/antimatter bomb.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 06:02 AM
link   
Assuming this isn't a hoax....

I wonder if the 700tons is a yield and not the size of the actual weapon?

It just strikes me that the US does not need to test large bombs to see what they do - they've already done that over and over. Hell the NK's blew *something* up a year or so ago and that created a mushroom cloud but was said to be none nuclear.

A small, conventional none-nuke weapon with a .7kt Yield would be something new though.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 06:09 AM
link   
The 700 tons IS the yield. There are several new explosives the US has come up with that are supposed to be a lot more powerful than previous conventional explosives. The MOAB was originally thought to be an FAE, however it's a new conventional explosive that was developed that's something like twice as powerful as C4 and other similar explosives. This is probably a test of a new explosive to see if it's as powerful as they think it can be.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 07:04 AM
link   
From the DefenseNews article:


”We have several very large penetrators we’re developing,” he told defense reporters.
”We also have — are you ready for this — a 700-ton explosively formed charge that we’re going to be putting in a tunnel in Nevada,” he said.
”And that represents to U.S. the largest single explosive that we could imagine doing conventionally to solve that problem,” he said.
The aim is to measure the effect of the blast on hard granite structures, he said.
”If you want to model these weapons, you want to know from a modeling point of view what is the ideal best condition you could ever set up in a conventional weapon — what’s the best you can do.


Any idea how long it takes to get from the modelling stage of these weapons to deployment?

[edit on 31-3-2006 by tjack]



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   
There is a lot of talk of this being a nuke but has anyone thought of what we might be destroying with this bomb? Do we know the exact spot and what sits there? Has the military hauled anything onto to the site to be destroyed by this bomb?

I think the use of "mushroom cloud" in the story was deliberate (not by the ATS author but by the government) to start this type of debate and distract us from thinking about other things. We need to think outside the box.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join