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.

 

Russia Tests 'World's Most Powerful Non-Nuclear Bomb'

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Russia Tests 'World's Most Powerful Non-Nuclear Bomb'


www.foxnews.com

Channel One television said the new ordnance, nicknamed the "dad of all bombs" is four times more powerful than the U.S. "mother of all bombs."
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Recent news about attacking Iran and then this. Are they not Iran allies? I really don't know. The timing worries me. And why would they need to have a bomb 4 times more umf than MOAB? They say its non nuclear but does that even matter at that point? Massive loss of life either way. But im no weapons expert.

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   
hmm well it is interesting. I wonder if the U.S. military will try to one up them now. I don't want to suggest that this weapon is better then a nuke or anything. I would rather see no weapons used. But that point was made in the news story.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   
seeings they have just flown 8 bombers to the UK and back, I am kinda worried now.

This isn't good.

The MOD seriously needs to start reconstructing its stock pile.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
They claim that this bomb is very "environmentally friendly"...




RIA Novosti: Russia tests world's most powerful vacuum bomb - TV 1


Russia has tested a thermobaric bomb that is the most powerful in the world, a top military official said Tuesday.

Known as a vacuum bomb, it uses a fuel-air explosive and can create overpressures equal to an atomic bomb, said Alexander Rukshin, deputy chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hellmutt
They claim that this bomb is very "environmentally friendly"...





Can you have "Green bombs"?

I don't think so



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hellmutt
They claim that this bomb is very "environmentally friendly"...



Friendly? [ad]Same death and destruction...no lingering after-effects![/ad]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


That is a good point. And since it destroys a large amount of air, something we all need, it is still very bad for all us animals that need it to survive.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Russia is in the know and they do everything to signal the US:

Stop this crazy plan NOW!



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   
my penis is bigger than you're penis, my penis is bigger than you're penis,

god. will these jokers ever stop?



[edit on 11-9-2007 by jimjamjerry]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   
So Russia detonated the biggest nuclear bomb and now the biggest non-nuclear bomb... cool.

Russia is surely aware that the US will soon attack Iran and I don't think their ``show of force`` will do a thing. The neo-cons don't give a damn about what the other countries think about their policies. If WW3 starts, good, they have the bunkers and it will reduce world population and the world will ask for a world government to stop anymore wars.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Enter stage right: The New Cold War!

Russia makes a bigger bomb, the US will follow suit, Russia will make bigger bombers to haul more bombs, the US will again follow suit.... meh.


And a world government won't stop wars. Wars are a part of humanity. If country A has something country B wants, A is gonna take it, whether peaceful or not.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Well if they can use radio waves to make water burn I would imagine use of radio and microwaves etc.. could be used on high explosive to cause them to make an even bigger boom huh...

Water to Fuel

I wonder if even higher exotic energies could be used to make nuclear explosions and even propulsion systems for space more powerful.

If radio waves turn water to fuel what would it do to gas heh.


[edit on 11-9-2007 by Xeven]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Russia detonated a fuel air bomb not a conventional bomb like our MOAB. We have detonated much bigger fuel air bombs, I saw a video of one along time ago. Now we use smaller ones AKA Bunker Busters used to collapse caves in the Afghan mountains. Russia has always gone big vs technology, A plan that has never worked out for them. Russia's pre-historic bomber fleet could have never penetrated Saddam's Iraqi air defense let alone any western nation so what do they plan to do haul it in on a donkey lol.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sky watcher
Russia detonated a fuel air bomb not a conventional bomb like our MOAB.


Well according to the article it contains regular explosives as well so what do you know that i do not?



We have detonated much bigger fuel air bombs, I saw a video of one along time ago. Now we use smaller ones AKA Bunker Busters used to collapse caves in the Afghan mountains. Russia has always gone big vs technology, A plan that has never worked out for them.


This bomb of theirs contains less explosives and causes a far bigger blast so i am not sure how it serves as example.
How have you come to the conclusion that Russia has always gone big vs technology?


Russia's pre-historic bomber fleet could have never penetrated


Russia operates twice as many B-1 type bombers and nearly as B-2 type strategic bombers so that statement is not true either. What is more ancient than a B-52 and what does that have to do with it's effectiveness?


Saddam's Iraqi air defense let alone any western nation so what do they plan to do haul it in on a donkey lol.


Well i don't know what you base this on but i suppose your going to try to prove this theory of yours here.


Stellar



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   
The least significant of the three elements of the Russian strategic forces has been the air force's bomber force, the 36th Air Army. The force consists of about 70 bombers, of which about 55 are the Tu-95MS 'Bear-H'. The force has been given a boost over the past year by the recovery of eight Tu-160 'Blackjack' and three Tu-95MS 'Bear-H' bombers from Ukraine, plus 564 air-launched cruise missiles. Funding has been provided to complete three almost-finished Tu-160s at the Kazan plant. This could bring the Tu-160 force up to 16 aircraft by 2001.
Janes Defense article little old but thats gives you the idea of how many bombers that Russia has. Russia does not have a stealth plane period and nothing that would compare to the B-2.
www.sipri.org... 2006 inventory
en.rian.ru...
This tells you what was actually tested. One bomb with 8mt of high explosive will never be outdone by a 7mt bomb of high explosive, Not twice as big anyway. Fox news is just all about the hype.

Any more questions?



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Mekanic
 


you forgot to do the one uppage....the us will follow suit...then up the ante as it were....which russia will not call....but up it again....

and to steller x curtosey of sky watcher.....OH SNAP!!



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   
The United States has 92 B-1B Lancers. 21 B-2 Stealth bombers and 94 B-52s. Russia doesn't even come close in its air power. After the B-2s and then B-1s do their damage then the B-52s devastate the target country.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 11-9-2007 by Sky watcher]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedGolem
I wonder if the U.S. military will try to one up them now.


Well the US is developing the Massive Ordinance Penetrator a 30,000 LB class bomb. Although it is heavier than the 21,000 LB MOAB it contains less explosive and it is physically smaller. It is designed to be a deep penetration munition (bunker buster), as such, most of the weight is high strength metal for reinforcement. Anyway, the MOAB carries more explosives than this Russian bomb, so in theory all we would have to do is use a different explosive. Instead of using conventional explosives we can switch to an FEA type and achieve a higher yield. But personally I don’t see the point...



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   
STOP MAKING BOMBS!!
Oh well it was worth a try...



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join