Home » News » Around the Globe » The “Father” of All Bombs

The “Father” of All Bombs

by Ward Carroll on September 12, 2007

The Russkies are at it again.

Back to their we can do things bigger and better than the United States, Soviet-style mode, the Russian military has recently tested their version of the U.S. Massive Ordnance Air-blast Bomb, or MOAB.

Heres Russian news video. I can read a bit of Russian but would be psyched for our international readers to give us more of the gist.

According to a Reuters story we found and what I can read in Cyrillic from the video, the Russian Father of All Bombs well call it the FOAB, for now weighs 7100 kilograms vs. the MOABs 8200KG, has an explosive yield of 44 tons of TNT equivalent compared to the MOABs 11 tons and has a destructive radius of 300 meters vice 150 meters.

When you look at the video, you can see the ground where the FOAB went off looks like a lunar landscape…

As all things that go boom, this is pretty darned impressive.

The Reuters story follows the video:

MOSCOW (Reuters) — Russia has tested the world’s most powerful vacuum bomb, which unleashes a destructive shockwave with the power of a nuclear blast, the military said on Tuesday, dubbing it the “father of all bombs”.

The bomb is the latest in a series of new Russian weapons and policy moves as President Vladimir Putin tries to reassert Moscow’s role on the international stage.

“Test results of the new airborne weapon have shown that its efficiency and power is commensurate with a nuclear weapon,” Alexander Rukshin, Russian deputy armed forces chief of staff, told Russia’s state ORT First Channel television. The same report was later shown on the state-sponsored Vesti channel.

“You will now see it in action, the bomb which has no match in the world is being tested at a military site.”

It showed a Tupolev Tu-160 strategic bomber dropping the bomb over a testing ground. A large explosion followed.

Pictures showed what looked like a flattened multi-storey block of flats surrounded by scorched soil and boulders. “The soil looks like a lunar landscape,” the report said.

“The defense ministry stresses this military invention does not contradict a single international treaty. Russia is not unleashing a new arms race.”

Such devices generally detonate in two stages. First a small blast disperses a main load of explosive material into a cloud, which then either spontaneously ignites in air or is set off by a second charge.

This explosion generates a pressure wave that reaches much further than that from a conventional explosive. The consumption of gases in the blast also generates a partial vacuum that can compound damage and injuries caused by the explosion itself.

“The main destruction is inflicted by an ultrasonic shockwave and an incredibly high temperature,” the reports said. “All that is alive merely evaporates.”

Rukshin said: “At the same time, I want to stress that the action of this weapon does not contaminate the environment, in contrast to a nuclear one.”

The Tu-160 supersonic bomber that dropped the bomb, widely known under its NATO nickname of “Blackjack”, is the heaviest combat aircraft ever built.

Putin, who has overseen the roll-out of new tactical and anti-aircraft missiles and combat aircraft, has ordered “Blackjacks” and the Tu-95 “Bear” bombers to patrol around the world.

The report said the new bomb was much stronger than the U.S.-built Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb — MOAB, also known under its name “Mother of All Bombs”. “So, Russian designers called the new weapon ‘Father of All Bombs’,” it said.

Showing the orange-painted U.S. prototype, the report said the Russian bomb was four times more powerful — 44 metric tons of TNT equivalent — and the temperature at the epicenter of its blast was two times higher.

In 1999 Russian generals threatened to use vacuum bombs to wipe out rebels from the mountains during the “anti-terrorist operation” in its restive Chechnya province.

New York-based Human Rights Watch then appealed to Putin to refrain from using fuel-air explosives. It remains unclear if weapons of this type were used during the Chechen war.

U.S. forces have used a “thermobaric” bomb, which works on similar principles, in their campaign against al Qaeda and Taliban forces in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan.

“It (the bomb) will allow us to safeguard our state’s security and fight international terrorism in any circumstances and in any part of the world,” Rukshin said.

Christian


Digg!

Share |

{ 47 comments… read them below or add one }

Vstress September 12, 2007 at 2:14 pm

I can’t really put my finger on a target for the Russian bomb… apart from a method of winning the war in Chechnya, that will create a new lunar surface… thus allowing them to create a new, cheap, moonbase, beating the US.
Seriously though… what can this really be used for?
It was good in Afghanistan due to the ability for the bombs shockwave to travel into the tunnels. Also the shockwave could collapse these tunnels.
But I don’t recall the US moaning that the bomb was not powerful enough!
The MOAB was actually also a cheap weapon programme that didn’t try to achieve much in the way of new technology. It was a more aerodynamic, bigger and gps guided version of it’s vietnam era brother. It just used the old fertiliser aluminium mix… nothing new.
The technology is a good for the Russian bomb though… seems they have developed a better explosive than the US use. But I doubt the US couldn’t beat it… but my point is – why try?
Russians develop massive non-nuclear bomb… US develops technology to render Nuclear threat obsolete… US wins.

Reply

Bob September 12, 2007 at 2:50 pm

Something strange about that video. Didn’t it look like the bomb was being pulled out the back of a cargo aircraft, not falling from a bomb bay?
In any case, big whoop. They can drop large unguided bombs.

Reply

Sunshine Goodness September 12, 2007 at 2:53 pm

I wonder if the same types of people that whine about the US having weapons will whine about this?

Reply

Foreign.Boy September 12, 2007 at 3:54 pm

“In any case, big whoop. They can drop large unguided bombs.” – Bob
Maybe I’m no expert.. but if a bomb is that big.. then accuracy shouldn’t be an issue…. unless the air crew is totally incompetent….

Reply

ibsteve2u September 12, 2007 at 3:56 pm

Makes ya hope you never see this story line:
“Russia loses track of three FOABs. The bombs, described as capable of fitting into a standard tractor trailor or ocean shipping container, were last inventoried in November of last year.”

Reply

Emastro September 12, 2007 at 5:03 pm

Soon to be used on some Chechen or Georgian village- with absolutely no condemnation by the world press…

Reply

Trent Telenko September 12, 2007 at 5:15 pm

The clip showed that the Russians have developed the world’s largest aerially delivered fuel air explosive bomb.
The device did not appear to have a guided as the USAF MOAB is.
Nor does it appear to have the ground penetrating ability of the 40,000 lb(+) heavy guided bomb being developed for American B2 bombers.
This is a military achievement, but what its utility is without a guidance unit, and the right wind conditions to allow the FAE cloud to properly develop for maximum device yield, is a good question.

Reply

murc September 12, 2007 at 6:25 pm

Bob – no the video is legit.
the camera was mounted behind the bomb bays doors, so it just apeared that is was sent out of the back of it like a C-17.
Also…many of you are bashing this bomb….I thought it was pretty impressive, Also I think it would do quiet well if they hardened the nose ans the frame of the bomb so it could be a Super bunker buster.

Reply

Patrick September 12, 2007 at 7:14 pm

I’m no expert, but looking at the explosion generated by the Russian bomb versus that if the American one they both look pretty much the same. I really wouldn’t be suprised if the FOAB has a similiar explosive yield as the MOAB, and I also wouldn’t be surprised if the Russians are just slightly exagerating the bomb’s power. Still, its an impressive weapon. I wonder if this will spur American defense industres to propose a “Grandmother Of All Bombs” to eclispe the new Russian bomb.

Reply

Kaltes September 12, 2007 at 8:25 pm

1st, we really don’t know anything about this bomb other than Russian claims, this is probably no more than the same nonsense we see from Iran proclaiming they have super weapons when they really don’t. I simply don’t believe that you can 7.8 tons of bomb with conventional explosive and turn it into the equivalent of 44 tons of TNT, even using the fuel-air concept.
2nd, anyone who thinks a fuel-air explosive like this can be used in bunker busting doesn’t understand how the concept works. Detonating this bomb underground would get you a pathetic fizzle. It needs to be used in open air to work.

Reply

Roy Smith September 12, 2007 at 9:15 pm

Actually though,tanks would be useless in Iran because Iran is almost nothing but mountains.I’m bringing this up because Iran seems to be our next battle looming.But still this bomb could put a hurt on our massed forces if we do not quickly establish air superiority during any possible war with Iran or even Syria.

Reply

Dimitar Vesselinov September 12, 2007 at 9:51 pm

Russia tests world’s most powerful bomb
http://youtube.com/watch?v=S2FGA3Z-oYM

Reply

Peter Tosi September 12, 2007 at 11:26 pm

There is one typo in the article, Russian bombs don’t go “boom” they go “boomski”.

Reply

Thomas L. Nielsen September 13, 2007 at 1:51 am

“Kaltes”, on September 12, 2007: “I simply don’t believe that you can 7.8 tons of bomb with conventional explosive and turn it into the equivalent of 44 tons of TNT, even using the fuel-air concept.”
If I remember my Fuel-Air-Explosives (FAE) theory correctly, an FAE can IN THEORY get you about 10 times the yield of a conventional bomb of the same mass, since the FAE doesn’t carry it’s own oxidizer. However, in the real world, due primariy to the difficulty of getting a proper mix between fuel and air prior to detonation, an FAE gets you some 5 times the yield of a conventional bomb. So a 44 ton equivalent from a 7.8 ton FAE isn’t that far out of the ballpark. And the Russians have been doing considerable research into FAE’s. They must have something to show for it.
I also believe that FAE’s can be used quite successfully for bunker busting, for a given value of “bunker busting”. The pressure produced by the blast should be able to damage a pillbox or a relatively shallow bunker. And if you’re really nasty, you let the fuel-air mixture seep into the bunker before igniting it.
You’re absolutely right, of course, that there’s no independent confirmation of the Russian data, and on the video it’s impossible to judge the scale of the explosion.
Oh, and murc, I will have to agree with Bob: It looks very much to me like the bomb goes “back. then down”, as if rolled out the rear ramp of a cargo plane, rather than being dropped straight down out of a bomb bay. Even if the camera was mounted behind the bomb bay, I don’t see how this could produce such an optical illusion. Wouldn’t a camera behind the bomb bay make the bomb appear to move towards the camera when dropped ? After all, it has all the aerodynamic properties of a wet halfbrick, and should start slowing down immediately.
Regards & all
Thomas L. Nielsen
Denmark

Reply

Thomas L. Nielsen September 13, 2007 at 2:19 am

Oh, and I’ve decided to name this bomb “Mr. Thingy”.
It’s Russian engineering at it’s finest: The same sense of finess, aestethics and fine detail that gave us the T-34, the AK-47 and the Soyuz spacecraft. Compared to the US MOAB, “Mr. Thingy” looks like it was welded up by a couple of plumbers in a back-alley workshop in St. Petersburg. However as an engineer, I feel that form must follow function, so if it works, who cares ?
Regards & all
Thomas L. Nielsen
Denmark

Reply

Kaltes September 13, 2007 at 4:01 am

When people say “bunker busting” they mean the destruction of hardened underground targets. If you attempted to use this weapon for that, and redesigned it to survive the impact and penetration, you’d still get a worthless fizzle. Surrounded by earth, there is no oxygen to draw on to fuel the explosion.
Fuel air explosives are supposed to be much harder to design the bigger you go, which is why the US doesnt have any big ones. Dispersing a massive amount of fuel in a very exact proportion over a very wide area all coming out of the same little bomb is extremely difficult, and the results are unpredictible and inconsistent. I would think it would be easier to design multiple smaller bombs to fall ‘in formation’ and detonate together to create the same powerful fuel-air effect.
Here is another idea: what is the explosion we see in the video is nothing more than a bomb sitting on top of a tower like the 108 tons of TNT detonated for the Trinity Test in the US in 1945.

Reply

Thomas L. Nielsen September 13, 2007 at 5:28 am

To Kaltes:
Agree. If by “bunker busting” we mean penetration into the ground or through reinforced concrete before detonation, an FAE would at best be no better than a conventional explosive.
You also suggest that “….it would be easier to design multiple smaller bombs to fall ‘in formation’ and detonate together…”.
True, in fact, US weapons designers have beaten you to it with the CBU-72, containing three BLU-73 FAE submunitions each weighing about 100 pounds.
As for “…what is the explosion we see in the video is nothing more than a bomb sitting on top of a tower…”. Yes, possible. But I do believe that we’re still looking at an FAE detonation, since you can actually see the fuel cloud dispersing in the video. But as for the size of the blast then, as mentioned previously, there’s really no way to judge scale on the imagery, so it could theoretically be much less than the claimed 44 tons of TNT equivalent.
Regards & all
Thomas L. Nielsen
Denmark

Reply

G.I. Guy September 13, 2007 at 8:22 am

I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned that the footage clearly shows the “weapon” (read as: experimental article) being deployed from the rear ramp of a cargo aircraft and the footage of the bomber is a propagandized attempt to make one believe it is deployable from their first-line strategic bomber (highly unlikely given its current configuration an, mostly, its extreme gross weight). I find it very difficult to believe it could ever be hung from a bomb rack.

Reply

Thomas L. Nielsen September 13, 2007 at 8:37 am

To G.I. Guy: “I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned that…” Somebody has – Please read previous posts.
Regards & all
Thomas L. Nielsen
Denmark

Reply

22lr September 13, 2007 at 9:28 am

Now all Russia needs is an airplane that can carry the bomb, into combat, and survive for more than 5 seconds. Then we might have a reason to worry. How many do you think they have, ill bet they dropped there only one. And within 10 years they might have 2 more. Heck, and they still dont have longrange delivery capibility. So we are safe here in the US for at least 25 more years, from this bomb.
But I would like to see there claim that this bomb can be carryed on a real bomber, other wise these guys have a totaly useless bomb, when it comes to a fight with a nation (like us) that has airpower.

Reply

Blake September 13, 2007 at 9:46 am

That video created more questions than provided answers!
They use the word nanotechnology in this piece but I haven’t heard how that helped?
The bomb in the video is extracted via a parachute, so maybe someone who has dropped a bomb from a bomb bay can explain this procedure?
One of the BLU-120/B tests in Tampa indicated a 10 mile distance from the blast, what is this?
If you stop the video and step through it, the first blast seems very similar to the second blast indicating that the object was stationary when detonated.

Reply

Allen September 13, 2007 at 10:12 am

The U.S. military claims to possess several larger air burst weapons but none have been demonstrated publicly.
Anybody can comment this?

Reply

22lr September 13, 2007 at 10:56 am

why do you even need a bomb this big (if it is as large as they claim)? Dont you get to a point were 2 smaller ones dropped from the same airplane are more effective than just 1 giant one. Why do you even need something larger than the MOAB?

Reply

anti america September 13, 2007 at 11:17 am

LONG LIVE RUSSIA!!!!!!!THEY HAVE THE BEST MILITARY WEAPONS IN THE WORLD!!!!! THE U.S HAS NOTHING BUT A CHEAP WAR ON THIER HANDS
LONG LIVE RUSSIA!!
LONG LIVE CHINA!!
LONG LIVE IRAN!!

Reply

22lr September 13, 2007 at 11:58 am

Long live all of em, so we can kill em all, at one time, without ever leaving the comforts of home. Well just send the Marines in to paint the parking lines. Well turn the middle east, and east into a nuked parking lot (sounds fun, were can I sign up).

Reply

The American September 13, 2007 at 1:09 pm

The Russians cant compare to the American War Machine. The United States has so much hidden military technology that the Russian “MOAB” is probabally nothing to worry about. Besides the U.S Missile Defence Network is the best of the best. Long Live Patriots!

Reply

Vstress September 13, 2007 at 2:33 pm

For some odd reason people here seem to think that this bomb has good bunker busting capability and/or good against tanks etc.
To protect against a blast is quite simple… all you need to do is build the structure to handle a high static strength to resist the shockwave produced and this will pass through the ground too – damaging foundation if these are weak too.
The reason why it can be used against tunnels is that what Al Quaeida build aren’t exactly what you count as designed for this purpose.
The risk in reinforced bunkers is that the structure does not take any of the blast. The blast wave will travel through the bunker and damage anyone in it’s path. Because the structure will not deform, it is likely the strength of the shockwave will not weaken as it passes.
Tanks are designed to take extremely high loading, therefore they are invulnerable to this – apart from possible engine damage. Remember that we figured during the cold war that nuclear weapons would be used on the battlefield. Ie. the Abrams is designed to handle a shockwave!
This is a great anti-infantry weapon.
p.s. if anyone disagrees (and doesn’t want to study aero engineering), just look at the old videos of nuclear blasts.
On a note of interest, there are also interesting equations and research papers out there regarding aircraft that encounter shockwaves (ie after dropping a nuke).

Reply

E. Strong September 13, 2007 at 3:02 pm

Fortunately Russia doesn’t have the best weapons and they know it. The bunker buster is just that. They would only use this this against enemies like we have and yet they are not involved in any war and they sure as hell don’t want one with us.
So they have trumped us on size but so what. They might have also blown up their only one. But let them run with us again. They still are copying us and trying to up us one and that is what we want. It’s working again and the passion of an idiot will always make them lose. So keep harping on long live this and that. They are not the Soviet Union.

Reply

22lr September 13, 2007 at 3:20 pm

Totally agree with ye there. I mean how can one giant bomb that takes the whole airplane to carry, do more dammage than a BUFF with a full JDAM loadout. Size just aint whats important. Im not worried about russia using the bomb on us, and I would no be suprised if they dropped in on a terrorist training camp (or something like it) just so they can say they used it in combat.
What worries me is that they will sell it to Iran, for use against Isreal. In the US if you dropped 5000 of those bad boys, you just lost 5000 bombs, and we are left with a vast majority of the country untouched, Isreal would be whiped out with 50-60 of these guys. However 50-60 BUFF size loads of JDAMS would do even more damage.
Anyone know if Iran has air assets to drop something this big? Or if they are makeing them?

Reply

Gunner September 13, 2007 at 4:25 pm

Like any weapon of that type it has a limited use. Yea, it was a big ol bang but so what. A TU95 with one of those bombs big deal. That’s assuming an old cold war machine could even get here to drop it which is unlikely.

Reply

anti american September 13, 2007 at 6:32 pm

THE RUSSIAN TU160 STRATEGIC BOMBER IS THE UNITED STATES WORST NIGHTMARE

Reply

Allen September 13, 2007 at 6:46 pm

You, bonehead “anti american. I served in Russian Army. What a crap! Drunk stupid officers plus untrained soldiers . They still use water in their track radiator (Zil, Gaz models). The best army, Ha give me a break.

Reply

beatle bailey September 13, 2007 at 7:28 pm

[The U.S. military claims to possess several larger air burst weapons but none have been demonstrated publicly.
Anybody can comment this?
Posted by: Allen at September 13, 2007 10:12 AM]
{That video created more questions than provided answers!
They use the word nanotechnology in this piece but I haven’t heard how that helped? …
Posted by: Blake at September 13, 2007 09:46 AM}
Allen: Sounds like English isn’t your first language. What is?
Blake: ditto.
Hard to say what the Russians may have meant by nanotech, but FAE bombs include aerosols, or very fine particles. It’s not a stretch to call that “nanotechnology”, if you measured the particles in nanometers.

Reply

Roy Smith September 13, 2007 at 8:14 pm

I’m sure that the Abrams Tank was built to survive a nuclear blast shock wave,but I’m sure it wasn’t built to survive a nuclear bomb exploding right over its head(close enough to kiss it) or sitting right beside it.This bomb is excellent for dropping on massed troops. Whats the deal with “bunker busting?” “bunker buster,bunker buster,” doesn’t anybody have any imagination? I bet it would make one hell of an IED. It would make the ultimate bomb for a VBIED & a suicide bomber,or place it on a boat like an Arab dhow.Remember when the Iraqis proved that anti-aircraft guns were still very relevant during Desert Storm?

Reply

Kaltes September 13, 2007 at 10:04 pm

No you cant blow this weapon up on the ground in a boat or as an IED or whatever and have it work. It needs to disperse a cloud of fuel mid-air. If you detonate it on the ground, the vast majority of the fuel would just spray on the ground and burn and you’d get a much much smaller explosion.

Reply

ryan September 13, 2007 at 10:10 pm

The U.S. military is getting there butt kicked because as bruce willis said in the seige the army is a broadsword not a scalpel, plus maybe a joint venture between russia and america could create the “mother in law of all bombs” creating a super bomb that both country’s can use in their struggle angainst terrorism.

Reply

BT September 14, 2007 at 12:01 am

A man portable nuke(<100 lbs) has a yield from 50t to 10kT. There is no real reason to build a massive multi-ton conventional bomb outside of scare tactics and bravado. Very little tactical value. No one has the political balls to use one one of these things on some Islamic village. That is why the US is developing ever smaller bombs more likely to kill only one person, or a small group. As much as I would like to see ‘carpet bombing’ with MOAB’s, it is never going to happen.
It is not a threat to the West. There is no chance a Russian cargo plane can get anywhere near its target.
The only new weapons that are needed are better ‘bunker busters’, and massive air burst thermobaric weapons are not effective for that.

Reply

Roy Smith September 14, 2007 at 5:56 am

This weapon would be like a modern day Scud missile,great terror weapon but no “military value.Using it for terror value by dropping it on “soft” targets such as population centers or ports as mentioned before. In the modern world,”chivalry” is dead. It can be just as easy today for us as well as our potential new enemy to degenerate into terror bombing just as it was in World War II.I imagine the reason people here are stuck on “bunker busters” is because they DON’T WANT TO imagine the horrible,”unlawful” ways this weapon could be used.As an IED,I had problems figuring out how to disperse the fuel before the explosion also.Maybe a container made of thin metal that has blow away hinges to blow the walls & ceiling away in a 3 explosion sequence,first outward explosion(away from the bomb to prevent damage to it) to discard the metal “protective” & camouflage cover(natually this thing would be above ground,not buried under it),second explosion to disperse the fuel,& then 3rd explosion to detonate the whole thing.The same principle on a boat,you have the thing on top & in the open,naturally covered to prevent discovery,but still allow for fuel dispersal before explosion.Maybe you could only get away with blowing up one of these things in this manner one time before people quickly catch on & are able to prevent further attacks in this manner.

Reply

Vstress September 14, 2007 at 1:07 pm

In response to a comment of a direct nuclear blast over an Abrams… oddly enough it could very well survive, providing the temperature doesn’t melt it!
Shockwaves are interesting things – see Hiroshima ground zero picture: http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/mp/p5s11.shtml
Also while looking for that famous picture I stumbled accross this article: http://www.captaindaves.com/nuclear/nwss/s60p793.htm
Due to expansion theory the gas accelerates (from stagnation) – to form a shockwave – but loses strength due to a reduction in pressure.
A simple example would be a rocket engine – where the highest pressure is in the bell (air is nearly stagnant) but expands and accelerates. This is technically more complex due to the con-div nozzle, but the idea behind it may help some people understand it.

Reply

Roy Smith September 14, 2007 at 2:10 pm

They call this a “vacuum bomb.” Does that mean that like a nuclear(hydrogen) thermobaric bomb,that it pushes the atmosphere out creating a temporary vacuum? I guess the obvious answer to myself should be yes.
How huge is this bomb size wise? I mean,like putting it on the back of a truck(for terrorist reasons),how big would the truck or trailer need to be? I’m not advocating terrorism,but maybe we should be on the lookout for such an attempt.The problem,as I said before,seems to be the dispersal of fuel before the explosion. maybe people should study this dilemma & then they could come up with countermeasures. I guess though,besides the dispersal problem,the next biggest pain in the butt would be actually transporting this monster without attracting attention(which I guess would be nearly impossible) &/or getting caught with it in their possession BEFORE they explode it.

Reply

Roy Smith September 14, 2007 at 2:20 pm

Maybe you could disguise it as a fuel tanker & hook it up to a semi tractor trailer.I mean,couldn’t fuel trailers be set up to be like a fuel air bomb(it would take a hell of a lot of modifications of course)?

Reply

Roy Smith September 16, 2007 at 4:17 pm

Okay,so everybody agrees that this bomb has no strategic military value.It cannot be used as a bunker buster.That means that we have to think outside of the box for the unorthodox terrorist value that this bomb has. This bomb being used by terrorists,even though the size of it,the means of delivering it,& the means of effective detonation(to allow for fuel dispersal before detonation) is very limited,has to be seriously considered. I came up with the idea of disguising it as fuel trailer for a semi tractor truck. To totally discount this thing because it doesn’t fit into a preconceived idea of how a bomb should be used & because most of the people cannot get past the idea of “chivalry” of war,allows for terrorists to shock us with an explosion from this monsters & we didn’t see it coming because we refused to consider the possibility.

Reply

Raymond R Roughton III September 17, 2007 at 12:28 pm

Beats the pants off a nuke. Weapons will bet bigger, weirder, and wilder…but the won’t be nukes.
Sergeant Major

Reply

ivan October 5, 2007 at 2:08 pm

you fuking asshole learn to write russians

Reply

Ivan Petkov January 9, 2008 at 8:18 pm

I CNA’T BELIEVE!THE BOMB WAS NOTHING.IT COULD NOT DEFEAT BUNKERS.THERE’S NOTHING TO USE IT FOR?
FIRST THE BOMB IS A GREAT ACHIEVMENT.
SECOND IT’S MAIN STRENGTH IS NOT THE SHOCKWAVE.IT’S THE HIGH TEMPERATURE AND THE ABILITY TO “KILL” EVAN TANKS.THE AEROSOL CAN PENETRATE SHAFTS,TUNNELS,HOUSES AND EVEN OPENED TANK HATCHES.AND AFTER THE SECOND EXPLOSON EVRYTHING THE MIXTURE HAS REACHED JUST … DISSAPEARS,BURNT BY THE EXTREMELY HIGH TEMPERATURE.BRAVO TO THE ANTIAMERICAN.PEOPLE,USA SUCKS.AND SUCKS HARD!IT HAS NOTHING COMPARABLE TO THE RUSSIAN MILITARY STRENGHT.MORE THAN HALF OF THE RUSSIAN ICBM’S THEY CAN’T STOP.THERE’S NO WAY.EVERY ANTI-ICBM MISSLE CAN HIT ONLY ICBM’S FLYING AT A BALISTIC TRAJECTORY.AND MORE THAN HALF OF RUSSIAN ICBM’S CAN CHANGE THE FLIGHT TRAJECTORY IN EVRY DIRECTION.AND THEN THE STUPID AMERICAN IDIOTS SHALL SEE ONLY THE FLASH FROM THE NUCLEAR WARHEADS(MORE THAN 3 IN EACH ICBM).AND FINALLY – FREEDOM FOR THE WORLD FROM THE AMERICAN OPRESSION. LONG LIVE MOTHER RUSSIA!!!!!!!!!!

Reply

Myers October 22, 2008 at 12:44 pm

I DONT SEE Y WE HAVE THIS WAR ALL ITS DOING IS TEARING US APART. ONE DAY IT WILL ALL CATCH UP TO US AND HURT. AND I DONT CARE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK OF THIS. ITS UP TO YOURSELF IF YOU AGREE TO THIS SHOUT IT OUT AND TELL THE WORLD PLEASE!!!!!!!!!

Reply

cat September 14, 2013 at 9:55 am

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: