NationStates Jolt Archive

Associated Press

MOSCOW -- The Russian military has successfully tested what it described as the world's most powerful non-nuclear air-delivered bomb, Russia's state television reported Tuesday.


It was the latest show of Russia's military muscle amid chilly relations with the United States.


Channel One television said the new weapon, nicknamed the "dad of all bombs" is four times more powerful than the U.S. "mother of all bombs."


"The tests have shown that the new air-delivered ordnance is comparable to a nuclear weapon in its efficiency and capability," said Col.-Gen. Alexander Rukshin, a deputy chief of the Russian military's General Staff, said in televised remarks.


Unlike a nuclear weapon, the bomb doesn't hurt the environment, he added.


The statement reflected the Kremlin's efforts to restore Russia's global clout and rebuild the nation's military might while the ties with Washington have been strained over U.S. criticism of Russia's backsliding on democracy, Moscow's vociferous protests of U.S. missile defense plans, and rifts over global crises.


The U.S. Massive Ordnance Air Blast, nicknamed the Mother Of All Bombs, is a large-yield satellite-guided, air-delivered bomb described as the most powerful non-nuclear weapon in history.


Channel One said that while the Russian bomb contains 7.8 tons of high explosives compared to more than 8 tons of explosives in the U.S. bomb, it's four times more powerful because it uses a new, highly efficient type of explosives that the report didn't identify.


While the U.S. bomb is equivalent to 11 tons of TNT, the Russian one is equivalent to 44 tons of regular explosives. The Russian weapon's blast radius is 990 feet, twice as big as that of the U.S. design, the report said.


Like its U.S. predecessor, first tested in 2003, the Russian bomb is a "thermobaric" weapon that explodes in an intense fireball combined with a devastating blast. It explodes in a terrifying nuclear bomb-like mushroom cloud and wreaks destruction through a massive shock wave created by the air burst and high temperature.


Thermobaric weapons work on the same principle that causes blasts in grain elevators and other dusty places -- clouds of fine particles are highly explosive. Such explosions produce shock waves that can be directed and amplified in enclosed spaces such as buildings, caves or tunnels.


Channel One said that the temperature in the epicenter of the Russian bomb's explosion is twice as high as that of the U.S. bomb.


The report showed the bomb dropped by parachute from a Tu-160 strategic bomber and exploding in a massive fireball. It featured the debris of apartment buildings and armored vehicles at a test range, as well as the scorched ground from a massive blast.


It didn't give the bomb's military name or say when it was tested.


Rukshin said the new bomb would allow the military to "protect the nation's security and confront international terrorism in any situation and any region."


"We have got a relatively cheap ordnance with a high strike power," Yuri Balyko, head of the Defense Ministry's institute in charge of weapons design, told Channel One.


Booming oil prices have allowed Russia to steadily increase military spending in recent years, and the Kremlin has taken a more assertive posture in global affairs.


Last month, President Vladimir Putin said he ordered the resumption of regular patrols of strategic bombers, which were suspended after the 1991 Soviet breakup.

So the arms race gets zanier. I predict that the US will be coming out with a "Big Daddy Bomb" or a "Huge M-fer Bomb" in the future to top it.

I know one thing that is true for now, NS Rpers are going to be drooling.

Great. Vovochka is trying to start a war.

"Unlike a nuclear weapon, the bomb doesn't hurt the environment"

Oh.. yay.

Cold War Version 2.

MOSCOW -- The Russian military has successfully tested what it described as the world's most powerful non-nuclear air-delivered bomb, Russia's state television reported Tuesday.
Fortunately for the rest of the world, the Russian government could only afford to build a single bomb: this one.

Fortunately for the rest of the world, the Russian government could only afford to build a single bomb: this one.Oh I'm sure they'll have another one... in a few years.

Cold War Version 2.

Very unlikely. Russia has come the realization that they simply can not afford nukes anymore and need to find a cheaper replacement.

Actually, once you built the first one, the second is much cheaper since you already have the design of the first one :)

But yes, soon we'll see the great-great-great-great-grandmother of all bombs :D

The bomb is probably fail compared to the MOAB.

Probably doesn't even have precision guidance technology. Probably also doesn't have a capable delivery mechanism, since Russia has very few strategic bombers worth a crap nowadays.

Paradoxically, this could be a positive step. If big fat bombs could do everything a nuclear weapon can do, without the radiation, the nuclear powers could re-arm with conventional weapons and we'd all be a lot safer.

The bomb is probably fail compared to the MOAB.

Probably doesn't even have precision guidance technology. Probably also doesn't have a capable delivery mechanism, since Russia has very few strategic bombers worth a crap nowadays.

Why would a bomb with a 44 ton yield and a 990 foot blast radius need precision guidance?

Why would a bomb with a 44 ton yield and a 990 foot blast radius need precision guidance?

Maximum effectiveness.

Big bomb on target 100%: Target eliminated for sure.

Big bomb off target by 300 feet: Target maybe eliminated, possibly still around and kicking.

So the arms race gets zanier. I predict that the US will be coming out with a "Big Daddy Bomb" or a "Huge M-fer Bomb" in the future to top it.

I know one thing that is true for now, NS Rpers are going to be drooling.

Or how bout "The Big Papa bear Bomb"? It sounds fairly friendly.

Or how bout "The Big Papa bear Bomb"? It sounds fairly friendly.

No, it should be named after an icon of American culture. Since it's a heavy-hitter, why not the "Muhammed Ali" ?

No, it should be named after an icon of American culture. Since it's a heavy-hitter, why not the "Muhammed Ali" ?

Or how bout Rocky Balboa? Or maybe the Italian stallion?

Maximum effectiveness.

Big bomb on target 100%: Target eliminated for sure.

Big bomb off target by 300 feet: Target maybe eliminated, possibly still around and kicking.

I suppose I should rephrase my question.

What target could possibly require the precision application of this massive conventional bomb?

Probably also doesn't have a capable delivery mechanism, since Russia has very few strategic bombers worth a crap nowadays.
They used a Tu-160.

Oh and here's a Maimi link, all the articles are the same basicly:
Link (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/AP/story/233721.html)

But they have pictures.

hmmm. soon we'll just be filling c-130s with high explosive and crashing them.

Paradoxically, this could be a positive step. If big fat bombs could do everything a nuclear weapon can do, without the radiation, the nuclear powers could re-arm with conventional weapons and we'd all be a lot safer.

This just means that we'll have to start adding more stages on our nuclear weapons to make them big badass mf-ers that can kill planets. I can see it now... a ten-stage nuke that can, quite literally, blow a country off the planet.

Superb. Putin seems to go up in my estimation every time I hear of what he does.

"Mother of all Bombs", "Father of all Bombs", Blah blah blah.

We have had a viable solution to WMDs that had little/no long term effects on the environment, Neutron Bombs. Very effective in spreading incredible amounts of fast dissipating radiation over a very large radius.

Short Term Effect: Lots of dead humans.
Long Term Effect: Less destroyed buildings and irradated land.

If that isn't the point of war then I do not know what is.

Go go Gadget Cold War!

"Mother of all Bombs", "Father of all Bombs", Blah blah blah.

We have had a viable solution to WMDs that had little/no long term effects on the environment, Neutron Bombs. Very effective in spreading incredible amounts of fast dissipating radiation over a very large radius.

Short Term Effect: Lots of dead humans.
Long Term Effect: Less destroyed buildings and irradated land.

If that isn't the point of war then I do not know what is.

The "point of war" is to compel your opponent to surrender, and so bring about peace upon terms favourable to yourself; this is better achieved by bring about ruin upon a country, not simply massacring civilians. Massacres tend to stiffen public resolve to face down the degenerates they are fighting, damage to property, food shortages and general destruction are far more efficient at eroding resolve.

Neutron bombs are not the silver bullet you say. There is still that tiny thing called a nuclear explosion that you need to get the effect. (It is also considered a WMD, so how on earth could it be an alternative to WMDs?) Also, just because most of the energy is dissipated in neutrons doesn't mean that all of it is. All nuclear weapons generate fallout.

EMPs are awesome.

I suppose I should rephrase my question.

What target could possibly require the precision application of this massive conventional bomb?

A full stadium. Airburst 100 metres above the centreline, 100% fatalities.

I'm not advocating a terrorist act. It's a weapon, killing people is what it does. "Strategic bombing" is not a terrorist act ... apparently.

On the contrary, strategic bombing can be terrorism, you just have to do it right.

So the arms race gets zanier. I predict that the US will be coming out with a "Big Daddy Bomb" or a "Huge M-fer Bomb" in the future to top it.

I know one thing that is true for now, NS Rpers are going to be drooling.

I'll take a MOAB over this bomb thanks.

hmmm. soon we'll just be filling c-130s with high explosive and crashing them.

Highly doubtful.

If they have a better precision guidance system than I'd expect from a Russian weapon, then I'd take this bomb over the MOAB, if it can be delivered by a strategic bomber (MOABs are delivered by C-130) and packs 4 times the punch and twice the radius then by all means I'm taking this one.

If they have a better precision guidance system than I'd expect from a Russian weapon, then I'd take this bomb over the MOAB, if it can be delivered by a strategic bomber (MOABs are delivered by C-130) and packs 4 times the punch and twice the radius then by all means I'm taking this one.

However, a C-130 could drop this thing square on the target and kill it in one shot. Using a Bomber at high altitudes with no guidence system on the bomb means you have a higher chance of a miss than you do with a C-130 dropped bombed.

So we just build a more powerful one? Our defense budget alone is 70% of their economy, so I think we're in good shape on the arms race side.

I'll take a MOAB over this bomb thanks.

"Bomb of mine, it's you I've always wanted!
Bomb of mine, why was I ever deployed?
Skies are blue inside of you,
The weather's always fine;
For
There ain't no Bomb in all the world
Like that dear big Bomb of mine."

(apologies to Aldous Huxley)
(heck, apologies to you too, ya son-of-a-gun.)

Perhaps you prefer:

"MY bomb, right or wrong!"

No, it should be named after an icon of American culture. Since it's a heavy-hitter, why not the "Muhammed Ali" ?
How ironic to have a bomb with the ensign 'Mohammed Ali' being dropped on Iraq.

On the contrary, strategic bombing can be terrorism, you just have to do it right.

It's more a question of who does it to whom.

If it's me doing it to you, it's not terrorism. It's "weee-hoo! Lookit that sucker, yay. Have we got more of those?"

If it's you doing it to me though, it's "a despicable act of terrorism and a wake up call that evil is on the march and we must defend ourselves at all costs. And it's evil. Utterly and fundamentally evil!"

It's more a question of who does it to whom.

If it's me doing it to you, it's not terrorism. It's "weee-hoo! Lookit that sucker, yay. Have we got more of those?"

If it's you doing it to me though, it's "a despicable act of terrorism and a wake up call that evil is on the march and we must defend ourselves at all costs. And it's evil. Utterly and fundamentally evil!"

Except no one is calling it terrorism.

Thats like saying only western powers think 9-11 was an act of terrorism.

How ironic to have a bomb with the ensign 'Mohammed Ali' being dropped on Iraq.

Yeah, drunk in the early afternoon on a wednesday, I'm in real danger of being head-hunted for employment by the US military. :p PR, of course.

Those mission names really need up-literating.

"Mother of all Bombs", "Father of all Bombs", Blah blah blah.

We have had a viable solution to WMDs that had little/no long term effects on the environment, Neutron Bombs. Very effective in spreading incredible amounts of fast dissipating radiation over a very large radius.

Short Term Effect: Lots of dead humans.
Long Term Effect: Less destroyed buildings and irradated land.

If that isn't the point of war then I do not know what is.

Problem, they use a fuckton of Tritium, which has a halflife of about 12 years, so it's very short lived and must be replaced nearly constantly. Shit ain't cheap either.

I think this is conclusive evidence that the Russian government is sexist.

So what happens when the father of all bombs and the mother of all bombs meet? :P

We get the Children of All Bombs (aka Massive Cluster Bomb)

So the arms race gets zanier. I predict that the US will be coming out with a "Big Daddy Bomb" or a "Huge M-fer Bomb" in the future to top it.

http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/707/707568/bioshock-20060510075837275-000.jpg

...

Sorry.

http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/707/707568/bioshock-20060510075837275-000.jpg

...

Sorry.

*Imagines a B-52 dropping hundreds of Big Daddies over Vietnam*

*orgasm*

Size doesn't really matter anymore.

What could be done with a B-52s worth of 500 pound freefall bombs can now be done, if not done better with a handful of JDAMs dropped from faster, smaller, more survivable aircraft.

the bomb doesn't hurt the environment
yes it just blast it to little bits

Unless I'm mistaken, the British still hold the record for the largest conventional bomb actually used with the Grand Slams of WW2.

"Unlike a nuclear weapon, the bomb doesn't hurt the environment"

Oh.. yay.

Awww, doesn't that just give you the warm fuzzies :)

"millionm people killed but no added impact to the environment!"

Very unlikely. Russia has come the realization that they simply can not afford nukes anymore and need to find a cheaper replacement.
methinkz nukes are NOT more expensive.
One of the reasons Korea wanted to keep a nuclear arsenal.. is to save money.

methinkz nukes are NOT more expensive.
One of the reasons Korea wanted to keep a nuclear arsenal.. is to save money.

Nuclear bombs are indeed very expensive. Also, look at how much money was thrown at the North Korean Nuclear Bomb Program.

Unless I'm mistaken, the British still hold the record for the largest conventional bomb actually used with the Grand Slams of WW2.

And what was the explosive yield?

And what was the explosive yield?

Grand Slam was ten tonne and five tonne was Tallboy

Nuclear bombs are indeed very expensive. Also, look at how much money was thrown at the North Korean Nuclear Bomb Program.

You've completely forgotten to factor in cost effectiveness and long term maintenance.

2 small yield strategic nuclear weapons and the required medium range delivery and housing versus 500,000 man army with relatively outdated weaponry.

Nuclear weapons are hard to ramp up to the point where you can get them, but provide the biggest deliverable bang for your buck and are cheaper to keep running than an army.

They already did. It was called the Tsar Bomba, and it had a yield of 50 megatons. They tested it over the Baltic sea and windows in Finland literally hundreds of miles away were smashed. Its mushroom cloud was 60km high.

It was immense.

methinkz nukes are NOT more expensive.
One of the reasons Korea wanted to keep a nuclear arsenal.. is to save money.
They are more expensive, and the reason Korea wants nukes is because it knows that "I have a really big bomb with equal or greater power to a nuclear bomb" doesn't create the same fear in civilian populations the world over as "I have a nuke".

damn...thats big

I hate to see what looks like the start of another cold war,though....

They already did. It was called the Tsar Bomba, and it had a yield of 50 megatons. They tested it over the Baltic sea and windows in Finland literally hundreds of miles away were smashed. Its mushroom cloud was 60km high.

It was immense.

Would you believe the original plan was for 100 megatons?

And why am I seemingly only responding to your posts? :confused:

When exactly did smoking craters become environmentally friendly? :confused:

When exactly did smoking craters become environmentally friendly? :confused:

Not to mention huge fireballs...I think they meant environmentally friendly relative to nuclear weaponry.

Would you believe the original plan was for 100 megatons?
Yes, but then they cut it down to 50 to avoid stupendous amounts of fallout.
And why am I seemingly only responding to your posts? :confused:
Because everyone else is being dull / I'm being dull and you're trying to liven things up?

the reason Korea wants nukes is ...the same reason India wants them... the same reason Israel, Pakistan, China, US want them..

They are more expensive.source?

BTW, my other point is that it makes economic sense for a poor country -like N Korea- to maintain a few nukes instead of a huge standing army.

the same reason India wants them... the same reason Israel, Pakistan, China, US want them..

source?

BTW, my other point is that it makes economic sense for a poor country -like N Korea- to maintain a few nukes instead of a huge standing army.

Or feed their people and put money into their own economy instead of weapons of war.