Comments on: The “Father” of All Bombs

By: Myers

Myers — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:44:52 +0000

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!!!!!!!!!

By: Ivan Petkov

Ivan Petkov — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:18:24 +0000

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!!!!!!!!!!

By: ivan

ivan — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 19:08:17 +0000

you fuking asshole learn to write russians

By: Raymond R Roughton III

Raymond R Roughton III — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:28:54 +0000

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

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 21:17:25 +0000

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.

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:20:07 +0000

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)?

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:10:40 +0000

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.

By: Vstress

Vstress — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:07:57 +0000

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.

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:56:57 +0000

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.

By: BT

BT — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 05:01:33 +0000

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.