Russia tests worlds most powerful vacuum bomb

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Bicnarok
Link..

HERE

rather worrying as they can then blow the crap out of some country then move on in afterwards. No radioactive fallout to worry about.

Fishy
Better that then a Nuke, of course they would use it a bit sooner then a Nuke but still....

But really I don't care much, they still won't be able to attack any western nations, China India or Pakistan... So nothing much will change in the political scale of things.

Thegungal
Perhaps comming close to the smallest atomic weapons in the .1 (POINT 1) KT range. If you actually map that out to sq ft it would take thousands of those to level a midsized city (where it would take only 1 weapon in the thermo range and a handful in the medium Atomic range)

Also, the size of the weapon means it is not deliverable in mass. It is not a weapon to be feared on any scale...just if you are the target.

Bicnarok
So Chechnya or whatever that rebellious place is called is gonna get some heavy heat.

Fishy
Originally posted by Bicnarok
So Chechnya or whatever that rebellious place is called is gonna get some heavy heat.

Seriously doubt it. Even Putin couldn't get away with dropping such a big bomb on a civilian target. Or at least something close to a civilian target. Where most of their enemy's would be.

dadudemon
This is quite awesome. I love this kind of stuff. I want to know more about it.

Also, it looks lik the diagram showed the bomb to be in the 6100 KT range...It also shows a range of 150 Meters...Since it is in Russian...I may be mistaken.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z238/dadudemon/Vacuumbomb.jpg

lil bitchiness
Its not range, its radius which is 150.

lil bitchiness
Sorry I just read the whole thing.

The one which is 150m in Radius is America's bomb.
The one which is 300m in radius is Russian bomb.

Its a comparison between the two.

Thegungal
Originally posted by dadudemon
This is quite awesome. I love this kind of stuff. I want to know more about it.

Also, it looks lik the diagram showed the bomb to be in the 6100 KT range...It also shows a range of 150 Meters...Since it is in Russian...I may be mistaken.



6100KT is 6.1 Megatons(MT). That is about the size of the largest ever Thermo-nukes ever deployed. AKA, city killers. Weapons with a 3+ mile blast radius.

Again, with a 150 or 300 meter range it is smaller than the smallest nukes and would take thousands of them to destroy a midsized city.

I dont think people have a good and proper understand of jsut how much energy is released in an atomic explosion....even a small one.

dadudemon
Here is some more perspective on what this blast would do....

http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html

Since this bomb focuses on more on recreating the pressure force of a nuke...this is more applicable to the dicussion...

Fat man's yield was 22 kilotons...

Little boy's yield was about 15 kilotons...

The Black Ghost
A bigger explosive weapon without the repercussions of breaking any nuclear treaties. Just what we need. enemies of superpowers beware.

Thegungal
Originally posted by dadudemon
Here is some more perspective on what this blast would do....



Since this bomb focuses on more on recreating the pressure force of a nuke...this is more applicable to the dicussion...

Fat man's yield was 22 kilotons...

Little boy's yield was about 15 kilotons...

yes, it is a great perspective. A Kiloton is 1000 tons. The smallest a nuke can be made is .1 or 100 KT. This weapon has a yeild of about .025KT or about 25 tons. 4 or so times smaller than the smallest of nukes.

Chart it on your link and you will see...it will take hundreds to destroy much of New York. A city without a huge amount of landspace.

Now punch in 500 KT...or an average yeild nuke. They do get much bigger though, and you can see it would only take one or two of those to get the job done.

This russian weapon is not on scale with a nuke...of any size.

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Originally posted by Bicnarok
Link..

HERE

rather worrying as they can then blow the crap out of some country then move on in afterwards. No radioactive fallout to worry about.
Russia and North Korea are pretty much on equal footing with propulsion devices.

Healing Artisan
russia

Robtard
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Russia and North Korea are pretty much on equal footing with propulsion devices.

Two things...

You shouldn't have abandoned "Feceman", that was a keeper.

Your sig cracks me up... silly Tranny.

Thegungal
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Russia and North Korea are pretty much on equal footing with propulsion devices.

Huh? Not even close.



Where is MK ability to place a payload into inter-stellar space?

Where is North Koreas ability to put payloads into orbit?

Where is NK ability to put anything into orbit?

Where is NK ability to launch long range ICBMs from submarines?

Where is NK ability to have a global reach with land based ICBMs?

Where is NK ability to even reach the US with a rocket?

Where is NK ability to manufacture its own Jets capable of supersonic flight?

Where is NK ability to manufacture its own commercial heavy lift aircraft?

Where is NK ability to manufacture advanced naval propulsion systems?

Where is NK air cavitation rocket powered Torpedos?

Heck, I dont even think they can make a car as good as the Russians.

So how are they on equal footing? The Russians have done all of the above and on a scale that can only be matched by the U.S. and in some cases not. They have a Rocket with a larger lifting capacity that anything we have ever built.

Even if the North Koreans have the know how or plans for some of these things they lack the money and infrastructure to build them. Same goes if they are offered the sale of some of these things...they cant afford most of them and they cant afford much of what they can get.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Thegungal
6100KT is 6.1 Megatons(MT). That is about the size of the largest ever Thermo-nukes ever deployed. AKA, city killers. Weapons with a 3+ mile blast radius.

Again, with a 150 or 300 meter range it is smaller than the smallest nukes and would take thousands of them to destroy a midsized city.

I dont think people have a good and proper understand of jsut how much energy is released in an atomic explosion....even a small one.

The problem is of crouse that this was not supposed to be nuke.It is the most powerful weapon which is NOT a nuke.

And as I already said, on the picture it says, 300 is RADIUS not RANGE.

According to the picture, Russia's bomb has smaller mass, but a bigger RADIUS...of distruction or whatever, I don't understand bombs.

Alpha Centauri
Terrible really, those bombs that cause distruction.

On a positive note, people test weapons all the time. I doubt it's anything to worry about.

-AC

Thegungal
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The problem is of crouse that this was not supposed to be nuke.It is the most powerful weapon which is NOT a nuke.

And as I already said, on the picture it says, 300 is RADIUS not RANGE.

According to the picture, Russia's bomb has smaller mass, but a bigger RADIUS...of distruction or whatever, I don't understand bombs.

I see where you are having the problem. When I use the term "Range" I am not talking about how far it can be lobbed, that would be silly. I am talking about "Yield Range" (what is the power output of the weapon)That is common bomb speak.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Thegungal
I see where you are having the problem. When I use the term "Range" I am not talking about how far it can be lobbed, that would be silly. I am talking about "Yield Range" (what is the power output of the weapon)That is common bomb speak.

Right.
I was merely translating what was posted.

In any case, the point is that the Russian bomb is (supposedly) stronger than American one.
It has smaller mass, higher range and bigger impact.


I don't understand bombs, but....maybe it means that it has 300m radius is effected on immediate impact...then the explosion...
I don't know, im guessing

dadudemon
Originally posted by Thegungal
yes, it is a great perspective. A Kiloton is 1000 tons. The smallest a nuke can be made is .1 or 100 KT. This weapon has a yeild of about .025KT or about 25 tons. 4 or so times smaller than the smallest of nukes.

Chart it on your link and you will see...it will take hundreds to destroy much of New York. A city without a huge amount of landspace.

Now punch in 500 KT...or an average yeild nuke. They do get much bigger though, and you can see it would only take one or two of those to get the job done.

This russian weapon is not on scale with a nuke...of any size.

The blast radius is 300 meters...990 feet isn't really much. I posted the link to the nuclear blast of a 100 Kiloton blast to show a comparison. I was not contradicting you at all. Blast radius for a 100 Kiloton bomb is 17+ miles...much much bigger that 990 ft.

Still, though, this is quite impressive.

Thegungal
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Right.
I was merely translating what was posted.

In any case, the point is that the Russian bomb is (supposedly) stronger than American one.
It has smaller mass, higher range and bigger impact.


I don't understand bombs, but....maybe it means that it has 300m radius is effected on immediate impact...then the explosion...
I don't know, im guessing

You are right, haha, you dont understand bombs.

This weapon doesnt explode when it hits the groud. Like a nuke it is detonated before it hits the ground. it produces a "blast" and a hyperberic effect (over pressure) The range of these effects is 300 meters.

Yes, that is one impressive and massive bomb but still target oriented when it comes to size.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Thegungal
You are right, haha, you dont understand bombs.

This weapon doesnt explode when it hits the groud. Like a nuke it is detonated before it hits the ground. it produces a "blast" and a hyperberic effect (over pressure) The range of these effects is 300 meters.

Yes, that is one impressive and massive bomb but still target oriented when it comes to size.

I am sure it was supposed to be.

Its radius is still twice as large as that of what America currently has.

Thegungal
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I am sure it was supposed to be.

Its radius is still twice as large as that of what America currently has.

I am just talking about the technical aspect of a machine. Nothing more. If this is a political issue for you, so be it. That is not my interest in this.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Thegungal
I am just talking about the technical aspect of a machine. Nothing more. If this is a political issue for you, so be it. That is not my interest in this.

Not a political issue. Its a ''matter-of-fact'' issue.

In any case, this thread is intended as political issue.

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Originally posted by Thegungal
Huh? Not even close.



Where is MK ability to place a payload into inter-stellar space?

Where is North Koreas ability to put payloads into orbit?

Where is NK ability to put anything into orbit?

Where is NK ability to launch long range ICBMs from submarines?

Where is NK ability to have a global reach with land based ICBMs?

Where is NK ability to even reach the US with a rocket?

Where is NK ability to manufacture its own Jets capable of supersonic flight?

Where is NK ability to manufacture its own commercial heavy lift aircraft?

Where is NK ability to manufacture advanced naval propulsion systems?

Where is NK air cavitation rocket powered Torpedos?

Heck, I dont even think they can make a car as good as the Russians.

So how are they on equal footing? The Russians have done all of the above and on a scale that can only be matched by the U.S. and in some cases not. They have a Rocket with a larger lifting capacity that anything we have ever built.

Even if the North Koreans have the know how or plans for some of these things they lack the money and infrastructure to build them. Same goes if they are offered the sale of some of these things...they cant afford most of them and they cant afford much of what they can get.
I was making a, you know, joke.

doan_m
Now why should they even bother going about calling it the "father of all bombs"? Sure they wanted to place themselves above the MOAB(mother of all bombs) buts thats absolutely unnescessary when factoring in something as crazy as the Tsar Bomba, which produced the world's largest nuclear explosive clocked at 50 freaking megatons of extreme power.

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Women are more prone to destructive fits of rage that leave their houses inhospitable to anyone, especially men, for a period of time; men are more prone to beating their wives and/or children while leaving their property suitable for utilization.

Therefore, it's the FOAB.

BackFire
It's important to continue improving our ways of killing other humans.

StyleTime
Indeed.

Fishy
Originally posted by BackFire
It's important to continue improving our ways of killing other humans.

I agree, this weapon is a hell of a lot better then a Nuclear bomb, now if they would make one as powerful as the most powerful nuclear bomb we could soon stop worrying about wars which will leave entire city's uninhabitable for years. smile

dadudemon
Originally posted by Thegungal
You are right, haha, you dont understand bombs.

This weapon doesnt explode when it hits the groud. Like a nuke it is detonated before it hits the ground. it produces a "blast" and a hyperberic effect (over pressure) The range of these effects is 300 meters.

Yes, that is one impressive and massive bomb but still target oriented when it comes to size.

You shouldn't be so arrogant. Besides, lil' Bitchiness isn't a dumbass.

I am very sure that you do not understand bombs as well as some, either.

Originally posted by BackFire
It's important to continue improving our ways of killing other humans .

There, improved it for ya. I look forward to warfare that is less and less planet destructive.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by BackFire
It's important to continue improving our ways of killing other humans.

Yeah. Finding more 'humane' ways of doing so.

Bicnarok
In a way it is "Humane", not much suffering if one of those falls on your house.

On a technical point why is it called a "vacuum bomb" does it cause a vacuum before it explodes?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bicnarok
In a way it is "Humane", not much suffering if one of those falls on your house.

On a technical point why is it called a "vacuum bomb" does it cause a vacuum before it explodes?

Not a pure vacuum in the way you are probably thinking, but a vacuum of sorts is created behind the overpressure wave.

There are different ways the the word vacuum is used. Vacuum could be used to describe a mechanism the creates a lower pressure than its immediate surroundings...you would say "This device creates a vacuum around itself" etc..

You are a "space man" so you use vacuum in its more scientific way.

inimalist
America picked a bad time to piss off everyone in the world

a non-nuclear arms race would be catastrophic... The threat of nuclear holocaust removed and all...

leonheartmm
vacuume bombs, interesting. personally id go with clean magnetic/laser activated thermonuclear bombs.

Fishy
Originally posted by inimalist
America picked a bad time to piss off everyone in the world

a non-nuclear arms race would be catastrophic... The threat of nuclear holocaust removed and all...

Yeah because Nuclear Holocaust freaking rules smile

Seriously world nations aren't going to find it easy to create bombs like this, and they are still going to be hesitant to use them. Besides they apparently aren't as powerful as nukes, so everybody would still want nukes.

Not to mention that if Russia were to use weapons like these on nuclear powers then they would still be attacked by nukes. Even if they don't use themselves... Nothing really changed, except for the fact that Russia can now destroy more people without using nuclear weapons in one blow then any other country... Big ****ing deal.

inimalist
Originally posted by Fishy
Yeah because Nuclear Holocaust freaking rules smile

Yes, MAD does rule, it has prevented war between rival powers

Originally posted by Fishy
Seriously world nations aren't going to find it easy to create bombs like this, and they are still going to be hesitant to use them. Besides they apparently aren't as powerful as nukes, so everybody would still want nukes.

world nations? Russia has them, Russia is posturing for some reason.

Yes, is there still the "nuclear" club, of course. But a way for nuclear nations to engage in small scale skirmishes with eachother without the threat of nuclear war does not seem beneficial to me.

Obviously I'm not stupid enough to think that Russia is going to be flying over the north pole with these things locked and loaded, but within the next 10-30 years, Russia and especially China are going to be forced into expansions into the middle east for resourses. If there are still Nato forces there.... :/

Originally posted by Fishy
Not to mention that if Russia were to use weapons like these on nuclear powers then they would still be attacked by nukes. Even if they don't use themselves... Nothing really changed, except for the fact that Russia can now destroy more people without using nuclear weapons in one blow then any other country... Big ****ing deal.

Yes, were russia to attack mainland usa with these bombs it would provoke retaliation. Unfortunatly, because any nuclear response would result in MAD, they must stick to their less powerful conventional weapons. Also, in an attack of this nature, a nuclear response would probably reduce america's international justification of action. I know americans aren't interested in this, but we are discussing the hypothetical instance where russia attacks america. The following conflict will be resolved by America's current allies in Europe, or by nuclear winter.

The only reason MAD works is because the world would be unlivable afterwards for everyone, even the victor. Russia now has a way to attack and do severe damage to America, while maintaining the environment.

No, Russia wont attack mainland america, but they CAN. And should both america and russia build up stockpiles of these weapons, there is nothing stopping them from using them on eachother.

Fishy
Originally posted by inimalist
Yes, MAD does rule, it has prevented war between rival powers


And that threat still exists, it hasn't been removed. And country's always had the ability to attack each other without nukes.



Well Russia is one, it took time and hard work and in the end it will likely be easier for a lot of country's to develop a nuke as this would require a huge amount of research and money with far less gain then a nuke.



Nations always had that option, they never really used it because they knew that nukes were still an option if conventional weapons would fail, and eventually it would just turn out in to a game of who fires a nuke first.



I'm not denying that this weapon will cause more destruction then common weapons, but if Russia and China were to expand they would do so anyway, they don't need weapons like this. It just makes things easier for them, but it won't decide wars it won't change much, and in the end they still can't attack NATO because of the threat of nukes.



The thing is if Russia were to attack the US or any other Nuclear power then a nuclear response would be very justified. Russia couldn't expect anything else, they would be foolish to attack a nuclear power and expecting anything but a nuclear counter attack.



Weapons like this do not destroy nukes, they are still around. Nothing really changes because the threat of nukes remains. The US won't stop using nukes just because they have weapons that can partly replace them. It's the same for Russia... This weapon can be used at weaker party's without nukes, meaning pretty much that all NATO country's, India, Pakistan and China are pretty much safe anyways... And let's be honest the rest of the country's aren't country's most of us care about to much anyway.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Fishy
The thing is if Russia were to attack the US or any other Nuclear power then a nuclear response would be very justified. Russia couldn't expect anything else, they would be foolish to attack a nuclear power and expecting anything but a nuclear counter attack.


I agreed with a lot of your post except the above point. A nuclear retaliation would not be justified. Nuclear war is never justified. Ever. Period. We should only use a nuke on aggressive aliens from space. (I know no one will take that seriously...but other than mining on uninhabitable planets, asteroid/comet collision prevention, and saving ourselves from aliens, I can't think of a use for such a nasty weapon.)

debbiejo
Kerby, always buy a Kerby, they beat all the rest in vacume suckieness.

inimalist
Originally posted by Fishy


I know it's a little rude to just cut such a long post, but I agree pretty much with everything you said

to clarify a little, I do not see any scale conflict between major powers, for reasons you have said. As someone who lives in North America, I don't like to see a shift in conventional weapon power to a nation with a pseudofascist leader who seems to want to prove it's might. I don't feel personally scared, but I do like to be on top.

Also, I do think it undermines MAD, though maybe I overstated my case, I do agree that it still holds. Russia wont make any major moves against NATO, at least at this point wink (or ever, lol). It is not as unbalancing as a missile shield or some other type of anti-ballistic missile technology, but then warfare just moves to space or delivery systems adapt.

I don't know. If Russia had the military power to hold any part of Eastern Europe, think it would? If it could really challenge America, would it? lets say MAD isn't around, no nuclear extinction. What do you guys think about China, same question?

Fishy
Originally posted by dadudemon
I agreed with a lot of your post except the above point. A nuclear retaliation would not be justified. Nuclear war is never justified. Ever. Period. We should only use a nuke on aggressive aliens from space. (I know no one will take that seriously...but other than mining on uninhabitable planets, asteroid/comet collision prevention, and saving ourselves from aliens, I can't think of a use for such a nasty weapon.)

So do you believe that Russia could attack the US destroy it's military and take over it's city using only conventional weapons without the US retaliating with Nukes?

If the US would be forced into a position where it's either blow the enemy to smithereens as fast as possible or lose the entire country, then that choice would likely be obvious. Not to mention that the threat of somebody else firing first alone would be enough to make fire first, if I was in charge of the US military that is.



At this moment Russia wouldn't take Eastern Europe, may be in the future yes. If those nations wouldn't have been part of NATO or the European Union at least, as long as they are Russia can't. Without Nukes. well yes then they could do so in the future. They would be far more likely to succeed and the threat for retaliation would be a lot lower. They would risk an all out war with the US and Europe but that's doable.

As for China, China I think would have invaded other country's long ago if it wasn't for the threat of nuclear weapons.

inimalist
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007-09/15/content_6108893_2.htm

OH NO, the Bear is back

Fishy
Originally posted by inimalist
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007-09/15/content_6108893_2.htm

OH NO, the Bear is back

Well there you have it, pretty soon they will bomb Helsinki and then London. Before you'll know it we'll all be dead..

Or perhaps nothing will happen.

tabby999
Exactly, all over the world conutrys are making more and more powerfull bombs, but they all know that if they use them for the designed purpous everyone else has them to fire straight back.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.