Russia tests worlds most powerful vacuum bomb

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Indeed.

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. 🙂

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 [while reducing the negative effects on the environment].

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

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

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

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?

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.

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...

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

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 🙂

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.

Originally posted by Fishy
Yeah because Nuclear Holocaust freaking rules 🙂

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.... :/

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.

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 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.

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.

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.