the most powerfull conventional weapon on the planet. has the blast "equivalent a nuclear bomb". Possibly up to 4 times more powerful than the US "mother of all bombs"

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/09/12/russia.bomb.ap/index.html

it begins

9/12/2007 10:49:20 AM

probably testing it out to make sure its in working condition when the US led coalition launches air strikes on Iran next year

9/12/2007 10:54:19 AM

Fantastic matter-of-fact response. Surely Americans don't all take the prospect of further war so lightly...

Or do we?

9/12/2007 11:02:02 AM

Does this really matter, the TU-160 is not a stealth bomber, we would see this coming miles upon miles away

9/12/2007 11:06:41 AM

^^^you mean as a counter-attack or are you implying russia would be part of that coalition? The latter is pretty laughable

9/12/2007 11:15:57 AM

^ Exactly, our F-22's could take that thing down before the pilots even realized they were being targeted and had a chance to drop the thing. US Airpower "dad of the skies."

Air superiority ftw.

9/12/2007 11:37:39 AM

^^lots of things are laughable until they happen

9/12/2007 11:54:48 AM

like the government being dissolved

9/12/2007 12:41:05 PM

impending global economic collapse FTW.

y'all can find me in the northern Idaho panhandle, selling homemade soap, candles, and sawed-off shotguns from my cabin.

9/12/2007 12:47:24 PM

seriously

9/12/2007 1:02:01 PM

Is it still a pan handle if its pointed north like that? I think we should call it the chimney...the chimney of Idaho.

9/12/2007 1:08:48 PM

Eh, if it's only four times as powerful as a MOAB, it ain't no nuke.

2E+11 J vs. 6.3E+13 J.

And the second number is for a small nuclear bomb.

The article gives it a yield of 44 tons. That's nothing compared with a nuclear device.

I didn't know chemical explosives that efficient existed, though. That Russian stuff is more than five and half times as powerful as TNT?

[Edited on September 12, 2007 at 1:18 PM. Reason : tons]

9/12/2007 1:14:28 PM

^ exactly.

I don't really give a shit about this thing as either an American serviceman or civilian.

As a Chechnyan rebel, maybe it would be a different story.

9/12/2007 1:30:00 PM

I thought this comment was funny.

Quote :

"Unlike a nuclear weapon, the bomb doesn't hurt the environment, he added."

As for the bomb itself, I don't think it's any direct threat to the United States. Sure, it's nasty, but its hardly a game changing weapon in the grand scheme of strategic balance or even tactical doctrine. This is just another way for the Russians to show that it has restored itself as a legitimate military power, not that its about to conquer the world.

9/12/2007 2:27:58 PM

exactly

they're just flexing nuts lately at every opportunity...but it's often in rather inconsequential ways.

9/12/2007 2:32:15 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_bomba

They've always been about flexing nuts.

9/12/2007 2:49:59 PM

Its not so much the bomb that counts any more, its the delivery system.

9/12/2007 2:51:44 PM

^ I'd be worried if they could miniaturize it to the point where it could fit in a suitcase or backpack.

9/12/2007 3:12:24 PM

If they could miniaturize a conventional explosive of that magnitude to a briefcase...you know what, I don't even know how to finish that because that type of technology is very very unimaginable

9/12/2007 3:19:33 PM

Yeah, that was sarcasm.

9/12/2007 3:22:13 PM

on this site, you never know

9/12/2007 3:22:49 PM

I don't know what y'all are talking about.

I carry around a seven-ton briefcase every day of the week.

9/12/2007 3:46:13 PM

Fred Thomspon is super concerned about this.

9/12/2007 3:59:11 PM

^^^^^^ i don't see any reason that they couldn't

but again, it would hardly change the game

9/12/2007 4:58:54 PM

The chimney of idaho would make sense since it's been on fire most of the summer.

9/12/2007 5:55:04 PM

Time for us to begin work on the "grandpa of all bombs"

9/12/2007 9:05:36 PM

the "annoying uncle of all bombs"

9/12/2007 9:15:08 PM

Need a diverse repertoire. What about these?

The "overbearing mother-in-law of all bombs"

The "gay cousin of all bombs"

9/12/2007 9:32:29 PM

who cares.

using this weapon would be like pulling out a knife in a fist fight..
there is the possibility the other guy will just say fuck it and use a gun.

9/12/2007 10:24:08 PM

what

9/12/2007 11:04:08 PM

the "drunknloaded of all bombs"

9/13/2007 5:52:08 AM

^^ WORD

9/13/2007 8:28:03 AM

^^ ha

welcome back

9/13/2007 9:17:12 AM

Wow some of your are teetering on the extreme end of retarded.

First off this news is over a day old.

Second off, we'd already be five orders of fucked if a bomber could actually reach American Soil to drop this thing.

This is just highlighting a renewed Russian interest in military power, which given their oil reserves, they'll be able to pursue again.

We should hasten a global conversion away from oil based economies and we'd effectively economically pwn them (Again).

9/13/2007 10:24:04 AM

Quote :

"This is just highlighting a renewed Russian interest in military power, which given their oil reserves, they'll be able to pursue again. We should hasten a global conversion away from oil based economies and we'd effectively economically pwn them (Again)."

ftw

9/13/2007 12:35:38 PM

Quote :

"Second off, we'd already be five orders of fucked if a bomber could actually reach American Soil to drop this thing."

Considering they have no way of doing that undetected I'm not very concerned.

9/13/2007 1:37:35 PM

Quote :

"First off this news is over a day old. "

this thread is over day old

9/13/2007 3:05:09 PM

i think it's a day and a half old.

it's like the discounted muffins in a coffee shop.

no one wants that shit.

bring the fresh, motherfucker.

9/13/2007 3:23:29 PM

Speaking of flying over the US, I just learned about this a couple of days ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Open_Skies
and before you flame me for using wiki, it was simply the most succint article. Here is a link to the treaty itself: http://www.state.gov/t/ac/rls/fs/2004/33147.htm

Long and short of it, any member of the Treaty on Open Skies has unarmed military overflight of any other nation in the treaty, provided it submits a flight plan first. This happened as recently as this week, actually.

9/13/2007 4:13:22 PM

Quote :

"Unlike a nuclear weapon, the bomb doesn't hurt the environment, he added."

ahahahahhahahaa, as much, yes.

9/18/2007 8:51:33 AM

is anyone else catching the vibe that russia, some other middle eastern countries and venezuela are attmepting to conquer the world via control of oil

[Edited on September 18, 2007 at 11:23 AM. Reason : ]

9/18/2007 11:22:52 AM

I guess it depends on your definition of conquering the world.

9/18/2007 11:26:59 AM

well just imagine

if americans can't drive their cars around

then we are all fucked

9/18/2007 11:43:47 AM

Don't worry guys, this bomb is environmentally safe!!

9/18/2007 11:57:34 AM

OUR BOMBS MELT FACES, NOT ICE-CAPS

9/18/2007 5:50:40 PM

that's weird, I though russia was all about the motherland. how come they have the father bomb and the US has the mother. that makes no sense!!!

9/18/2007 8:55:12 PM

In Russia father bomb has YOU.

9/18/2007 11:59:42 PM