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

but...but...we have to attack Iran. They're crazy!!

I don't see how this is not an overt threat compared to Iran using nuclear power for energy purposes. But then again the American government can't attack Russia because it can fight back. So they take out Iran and call it war on terrorism.

Anyways, I guess we'll have to wait to see what happens.....as we do with everything else.

Originally posted by Sky watcher
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]

well they're busy with the UCAV "Skate" and the PAK FA.[just as the french and swedish are working on the nEUROn, it could take decades]
They already have radar to detect stealth and their missile technology is way ahead..

btw, such a bs to talk about non conventional weapons, what happened for instance in Dresden in WW2 was the same horror that unfolded in Hiroshima..



[edit on 11-9-2007 by Foppezao]

reply to post by superheterodyne


Nuc, Nuetron devices and high power conventional weapons. I'm wondering does it really matter who has the more powerful killing and destruction mechanism?
I say that as I believe the speed of the delivery system seems more important for overall success.

Using a mach 9 delivery machine can deliver the goods to all the "evil doers" before missiles can be raised for launch, seems to me. I suppose the only fallout concern is getting to all hidden retaliatory mobile missile weapons eg Subs. Ahh.. perhaps that's what Russia's so hot about?

A Ballistic shield that will intercept all (subs and mobile missile threats) too.
I can see how such a shield once implemented would neatralize ALL Russia/China hidden missle threats except the hand-delivered variety under the shield canopy.

Wonder what the plan will be to deal with that? I suppose TBA. Or could it be NWO implementation by first dealing with the overpopulation problem by removing masses which are a threat to world order.

Dallas

I think this is a video of it. It was added 9 hours ago, so I'm assuming it may be.

It's in Russian or what ever the hell language they're speaking. It looks like a news cast, but there's some footage of the bomb in there.

(I didn't see this video posted yet in this thread, but if it was, I apologize)

reply to post by Sky watcher


Russia will have 30 Tu-160 by 2012, 162 Tu-22M, 64 Tu-95, and 200 Su-34s by 2020. Hardly a prehistoric fleet of aircraft, and infact, that fleet could most likely, with correct support, easily break through into any western countries air defence systems.

Thanks.

EDIT: And no, while none are stealth, they do have SOME stealth elements and have cruise missiles with very long ranges.

Does anyone have any info regarding if this weapon could somehow be used in war without violating nuclear treaties? Even though it's not a nuclear weapon, it's pretty damn devastating...

For you people that laugh at Russias statement of their bomb being environmentally friendly.
Read again.

It says that it's more environmentally friendly COMPARED TO the atomic bomb.

This reminds me of a Cold War.
Though this one will probably be one on a different scale.

nothing to worry about. it is actually good news for the U.S. ...we will simply just buy it from them.... they need the money

We are entering a cold war. Then we will have a civil war here in the U.S. Finally, WW3. That's my guess anyway, and I think most Americans will be siding with the Russians this time.

But Russia has/had the BIGGEST bomb of all times -- the 50 megaton Tsar Bomba.

The TSAR bomb....good times.

Originally posted by StellarX
How have you come to the conclusion that Russia has always gone big vs technology?

Check out the Tsar Tank, Tsar Cannon, Tsar Bell, Tsar Bomba, the Tupolev Tu-95, the Antonov An-225...the list goes on for quite a while. It's part of the culture.

despite their explanation that it is non nuclear, isn't exactly true..just because they used non "radio active"elements it can still produce the same effect destruction wise. but the required mass is so huge they couldn't really mount one to be launched like a ballistic nuke. this is why they have to drop it.. our bunker buster as well. you still get a mushroom cloud but the disturbed electro magnetics are much more spread out. only things in the very immediate vicinity would be emp'd, and it probably wouldn't mutate your dog. i guess thats considered environmentally friendly?

Please correct me if im wrong, but from the description the 'concept' by this being the biggest non nuclear bomb doesnt make sense.

There's a detonation which releases gas into the immediate area, to mix with the air, then a secondary explosion to ignite it..

this may be a bomb in the sense there's detonation, but isnt this effectivley a different form of a fire bomb or napalm?

when a significantly minor explosion releases accelerant, then a second minor explosion ignites creating destruction to anything within reach of the heat/flames?




[edit on 12-9-2007 by Agit8dChop]

Originally posted by Sky watcher
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.

Maybe because the US tends to play world-police, so they need another kinds of bombs, for small groups/buildings. Russia tends to have a more anti-city arsenal, used in a big-scale war.

reply to post by Sky watcher


Only a fool underestimates a potential enemy.

Plain and simple.

I really do not understand these tendencies to create an even more powerfull bomb then it ever was built. I think that the inventors of the so called GAY BOMB really nailed it, because the very idea of making Love not War is kind of revolutionary in the is evolution of destruction. Wouldn't it be nice, to watch entire divisions of brave men suddenly hitting on each other and hugging and cuddling and kissing instead of shooting?

Originally posted by Sky watcher
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'.

And Interestingly the their primary strategic bomber ( Tu-22 , warfare.ru... ) is not a strategic bomber according to the CIA and others so it's just LEFT out; nice way to win a 'war' i suppose.

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.

And they were oh so well 'hidden', yes....

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.

warfare.ru...

Yes and they are in my opinion far better aircraft than their American counterparts in the B-2 Spirit.

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...

I knew all along but while people such as yourself chooses to be fooled by such simpleminded media propaganda i suppose it's going to be hard to convince you that you are not the 'strongest' but could be if you pressured your officials.

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?

Plenty but i suppose it's most interesting to note when someone will choose not to believe Fox. Why do you think a eight ton bomb would not be less effective than a 7 ton bomb and what principles are you invoking here?

Originally posted by Sky watcher
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...

It in fact has nearly 160 B1-B lancer type aircraft, 17 aircraft that is superior to the B-2 in most of what i consider critical flight characteristics and almost as many B-52 type aircraft. Half of the US strategic number aircraft are prop driven while less than one third of the more numerous Russian strategic aircraft are. In fact the Russians operate as many Tu-22 backfires ( not counting the almost 100 reserve aircraft) as the US operates strategic bombers in total and the question then becomes why you are so completely unaware of that?

Originally posted by Thousand
Check out the Tsar Tank, Tsar Cannon, Tsar Bell, Tsar Bomba, the Tupolev Tu-95, the Antonov An-225...the list goes on for quite a while. It's part of the culture.

So what? I mean what does it mean in terms of production and like capability to also be able to build the 'biggest' of everything to prove a point? Do you think this somehow PROVES that they never had the numbers of the quality to do the job they had set for themselves?

Stellar

Finally, warfare as it should be, without nukes.

I´m all for blasting each other with bullets, hey, I´m even for carpet bombing. However, I don´t support nuclear arms of any caliber.

Frontkjemper

reply to post by StellarX


The U.S. has no prop driven bombers!!!! Where in the world did you come up with that one. It took the Russians 20 years to come up with the Bear-95 Prop bomber after we had the B-52. The tu-160 is a bad copy of the B-1, It is not stealth. The B-2 Stealth bombers can penetrate any air defense and is the most advanced bomber in the world. We would see every Russian bomber on radar a thousand miles away and they would all be shot down.
You loose.
Your wrong and come up with ignorant statements so please move on because you don't have a clue what your talking about.

[edit on 12-9-2007 by Sky watcher]

Originally posted by Sky watcher
The U.S. has no prop driven bombers!!!! Where in the world did you come up with that one.

I have no idea why i suddenly got the stupid idea in my head that the B-52's are prop aircraft and i apologise for making such a dumb mistake.

It took the Russians 20 years to come up with the Bear-95 Prop bomber after we had the B-52.

Actually they made their maiden flights in the same year and since the Tu-95 is only marginally slower it may or may not matter much. If you want to brag about the US technological edge talk about the B-58 Hustler...

The tu-160 is a bad copy of the B-1, It is not stealth.

It is far too large ( a full one quarter larger) to be a bad copy of the B-1b but i suppose you really will say anything. As to the other flight characteristics i am not sure what you will find to compare...

The B-2 Stealth bombers can penetrate any air defense and is the most advanced bomber in the world.

It is claimed that they can penetrate any air defenses but only at night with a full complement of support aircraft of any and all varieties; stated in another way they are not going to affect the outcome of any war with a major power of the world.

We would see every Russian bomber on radar a thousand miles away and they would all be shot down.

Shot down by what? How are either of those bombers going to be caught with fighter aircraft that are all slower or just as fast? What nearly non-existent US air defenses are going to shoot them down?

You loose.

I'm not Russian and i can assure you that we will ALL lose one thing or another.

our wrong and come up with ignorant statements so please move on because you don't have a clue what your talking about.

I'm wrong about one thing but i suppose i will find chicken teeth before you admit to making the tiniest of mistake. Are you ready to acknowledge that Russia's strategic aircraft are both more numerous and at least on the face of it equally capable?

Stellar

[edit on 12-9-2007 by StellarX]