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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, MAD does rule, it has prevented war between rival powers
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.... :/
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.
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.
KMC Community Forums
Sep 13th, 2007 12:58 AM
