Slashdot Mirror
Russia Tests World's Largest Non-Nuclear Bomb
mahesh_gharat writes "Russia has tested the "Father of all bombs," a conventional air-delivered explosive that experts say can only be compared with a nuclear weapon in terms of its destructive power.The device is a fuel-air explosive, commonly known as a vacuum bomb, that spreads a high incendiary vapour cloud over a wide area and then ignites it, creating an ultra-sonic shock wave and searing fireball that destroys everything in its wake."
Who's your daddy? FOAB! :-)
Seriously though, Russia has for many decades going back to just after WWII had a predilection for one upping the West in terms of military hardware. They have often defaulted to building bigger engines than just about every other jet fighter (Mig-25), the biggest cargo plane I've ever been in, the An-224 (though there is a bigger 225), bigger submarines (Typhoon class), the Soviet KV Big Turret Tank of 1942 (exception for the German Landkreuzer) and more. Those Bear bombers are pretty damned big aircraft too...
I'm actually not surprised to see weapons like this developed given the nuclear weapon treaties of the past 40 years, but if the participating members including Russia and the US continue pushing nuclear ambitions, we will have lost all credibility here.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Now that Putin's dissolved that pesky and meddlesome parliament, his plans for the Russian conquest can proceed apace.
First up: Ukraine! Ukraine is weak.
They have WMD! They harbor terrorists!
Seriously? Isn't it ironic that MOTHER Russia built the FATHER of all BOMBS to outdo UNCLE SAM's MOTHER of all Bombs? Its almost mind-blowing...
...and it should be known by now
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
It's only about 5% of the smallest nuclear warhead in existence. Equivalent to 44 tons of TNT. It's a big bomb, sure, but nothing even close to what leveled Hiroshima.
ah, never mind, too easy.
digitalhallucination... now phosphate free!!
It just might be enough to destroy the Angels that are a'comin' in 2015!
The fuel part is toxic as some use ethylene oxide and propylene oxide (more like a chemical agent cloud).
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
This type of bomb is mostly ueseful for chest-thumping. It cannto be used in any situation were you cannot commit atrocities. It has unreliable yield. This seems to be manly a gesture by the current primitives in the Kremlin that is intended to tell the world, that they still are a global power. Pathetic, really.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
It's just a fuel air bomb. Granted, a big one.
These weapons are nothing more than grandiose show-offs with alleged dubious psychological effects. They're not going to launch one of these on an ICBM any time soon, unless Russia started using Antonovs as ICBMs while I was on vacation.
This is the military equivalent of having a nuclear warhead that has to be set off with a match. Flashy but completely useless.
bomb explodes you!
One of the great military advantages of modern nuclear devices is that they pack an enormous amount of power into a relatively small space. A small nuke can be made to sizes no bigger than conventional bombs, so the bombers/missile/icbm can carry a lot of them. They also scale very well, every small amount you can increase in size allows for a huge increase in power, normal bombs have a more linear scale. This thing must be huge since there has to be more conventional explosive packed into it to get the same effect, this limits the amount they can produce and carry. It's probably too big to be easily fit onto an ICBM, and if you could there'd probably be just the one warhead instead of the dozens that can be carried with a nuclear configuration.
This is just another example in Russia's long history of impressive, unwieldy, and impractically large weapons. The Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever created and tested by man (even at half it's theoretical strength) broke windows hundreds of miles away and registered on seismic instruments all over the world even though it was detonated in Northern Russia.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Greetings, here from Ground Zero....
Has it ever occurred to you that Russia could be using these bombs to:
a) Sell to other countries.
b) Act as a counter-balance to U.S. global hegemony.
No, of course you haven't.
As for Russia being a superpower, they're getting closer to that status everyday, now that they actually have a competent leader.
This space left intentionally blank.
Don't worry - the US will soon respond with their "Alcoholic Step-Dad of All Bombs."
Dark Reflection
Everytime I buy something it seems that only a month later a cheaper, faster, or larger version will appear. So I find it typical that as soon as an agreement is struck with North Korea, to identify and dismantle their nuclear programs, that in less than a month Russia is displaying a newer, cleaner (no radioactive contamination), and more powerful bomb.
Maybe if enough of us complain, then we'll get $100 store credit.
Is video acceptable? FOAB
Cold War 2.0
Having a President who gleefully revels in anti-intellectualism has its consequences, fellow citizens.
But, hey who cares! Freedom's on the march!
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
It's on Russian TV news channel web site:
http://www.1tv.ru/news/n108915
To play, click on a bomb's image in the right upper corner shown after flash loading.
In Soviet Russia, the military-industrial complex pays YOU?
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
The Russians are gearing up for their own version of "Shock and Awesky"
Anyone else get the feeling that the two items - flying strategic bombers and air-fuel bombs (they admitted it was important for the bomb to be cheap, apparenty due to the poor economy) - might be an indication of lack of readiness in their nuclear missile capability?
France is planning to test Le Grand-père de Toutes les Bombes next week.
The week after that North Korea is threatening to test indoor plumbing.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
... the N^2 mine? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N2_mine#N.C2.B2_bomb
It doesn't pollute the environment... it just incinerates it!
preads a high incendiary vapour cloud over a wide area and then ignites it, creating an ultra-sonic shock wave and searing fireball that destroys everything in its wake.
Here's a slightly more accurate description of what it does....to people.
They're indiscriminate and quite possibly the cruelest way of killing people save WW1-era chemical attacks.
The fact that the US and Russia are the only countries to use and develop them should speak volumes.
Please help metamoderate.
"It is environmentally friendly, compared to a nuclear bomb..."
Is this a joke? Kind of like "it's stable, compared to Windows."
Really, they can just shut down the gas pipeline in the middle of the winter and watch Europe surrender.
Nah...that type of thing is more widely known as a fuel-air explosive. Even my old flight sims from the late 1980s called them that. (Even back then the common target was Iran...)
Comparing these things to nukes really underestimates the power of a nuke. Consider the wikipedia entry on the Moab.
It's got a yield of 11 tons of TNT. That means the Hiroshima bomb, at approximately 15 kilotons, was about 1300 times stronger. And a Minuteman ICBM, at 1.2 megatons, is 109,000 times stronger. The Tsar Bomba weapon had a yield equal to about 40 Minutemen, or around 4.4 million Moabs.
I know there's additional factors when it comes to amount of destruction inflicted, but still, it's clear that these fuel-air devices are a drop in the ocean compared to a nuke.
The phrase "weapon of mass destruction" annoys me because it equates so many lesser things with nukes, which are, in my opinion, the only WMD, other than perhaps a really vicious plague weapon the likes of which we haven't yet seen.
They spend all their resources making weapons but have yet to be able to make a decent washing machine.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Hollywood has built far larger bombs. One of the largest was named Pluto Nash. Not many people have heard of it inspite of it not being a secret project. Smaller tactical bombs were created by the likes of Pauly Shore. Not as powerful but equally devasting at killing 90 minutes of your life.
Soon to follow are the American's fatter, flashier, and more politically correct "LENUTKI" (aka Large Explosive NOT Used to Kill Iraqis) and Japan's smaller, but more convenient "Pocket Bomb".
I use sudo in my everyday conversations so I can gain root access.
"They're indiscriminate and quite possibly the cruelest way of killing people save WW1-era chemical attacks."
I'd imagine being slowly hacked to death with machetes in Rwanda or fed into a paper shredder in Baghdad by Uday and Qusay might have been a little less pleasant.......
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Fixed that for you:
***Capitalism*** is evil. A harsh statement, granted. But when you see the 100s of millions of people it has enslaved for the benefit of the few people at the top, there's no other word for it but evil.
The US has the MOAB and Soviet Russia has the FOAB. What's next? The Child Of All Bombs?
The game.
Continued development of this technology may enable the creation of a Non-Radioactive Stratigic Deterent. This would be very inexpencive and is not so heavy that it could not be attached to any of their current breed of stratigic missles. An inexpencive, relativly low tech, mass producable first strike weapon.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
That's solid.
Quack, quack.
Does anyone wonder. How do they fire such a bomb?
Looking at the article. The bomb will be airborne. Attach a balloon? Make it helicopter like?
do you know of a kinder way to kill a lot of people in a very short amount of time?
war is ugly. avoid it by helping the poor and loving the enemy.
the brazen bull http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazen_bull has got to be up there.
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
The US has the MOAB and Soviet Russia has the FOAB. What's next? The Child Of All Bombs?
Look, your parents should have explained this but I'll do my best.
When a mummy bomb and a daddy bomb love one another very much...
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
that was not about the parliament but about the government. Also, technically it was resignation, though you may call it whatever you want.
I would've called it "The Lung Inverter"..."Father of All Bombs" is sooo last war.
Anyway, for the Simpsons fans out there:
<laugh class="MMMMWhaahaahaaa!!!!">
One day, they will create a Board With a Nail In It that's so big, it will destroy them all.
</laugh class="MMMMWhaahaahaaa!!!!">
And the money shot is where Russia claims that it doesn't believe this clear weapons-based pissing contest won't result in another arms race...
I can't tell if that statement is a.) a lie or b.) the result of extreme stupidity.
Clearly if they saw who was in the White House, or I don't know, maybe studied the past 200 years of American history, they'd have a pretty good idea that this would probably trigger an arms race... How often does America like to have its arsenal out-done by foreigners? How often is that translated into leverage used by politicians to justify further military spending?
Well, anyways, kudos Russia! Here's to the apocalypse...
Chemical weapons are powerful, but very difficult to disperse finely enough to affect a large population. Usually what happens is that a chemical warhead will go off, and deliver a superlethal dose to a particular area and leave the rest of the target pretty much unscathed. These weapons are also more problematic to store over the long term.
Nuclear devices on the other hand destroy with brute force, so you don't have to worry about designing fine dispersion mechanisms - the force of the blast will take care of spreading around radioactive fallout for you. Also, nukes "salt the field" by leaving medium to long term radioactivity in the area. Nukes are also more difficult to defend against, since they combine massive physical damage, EMP and radioactive fallout. Chemical weapons don't offer that kind of "triple threat".
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
In 1972 the Soviet Union launched a new multi-mission bomber competition to create a new supersonic, variable-geometry ("swing-wing") heavy bomber with a maximum speed of Mach 2.3, in response to the U.S. Air Force B-1 bomber project. They bombers had nothing to do with attacks on the navy. It had EVERYTHING to do with being able to go over the North Pole and hitting Alaska/Canada/the DEW line. Considering that they ALL are based in northern siberia, that makes sense. More importantly, the F-14 was put into production in 1970, 3 years before the idea of the TU-160 was started and 13 years before its production. Hell, the F-14 saw action in 'nam. Even the AIM-54 was started in the 60's and SLOWLY brought on-line in 74, 1 year after the tu-160 project was started and 7 years before the tu-160 was in production.
Moderators, do you guys just mod up with NO clue? Heck, use some common sense. Bombers are not designed to attack navy ships. Battle carrier groups are heavily fortified structures. Even back then, they would use small fast aircrafts to hit our ships, not monsters aircrafts that make inviting targets.
Sure you can, if you don't mind a few casualties. The Russians seem to have a liberal policy about random deaths in terrorism matters.
Example: when 32 Chechnyen separatists took over the Beslan School and had 1200 hostages ( several hundred of them children ), Russian security forces used tanks ( firing - according to one of the tank comander's testimony - "antipersonnel-high explosive shells" ), flamethrowers, and at least one Mi-24 helicopter gunship.
At least 334 hostages died, and approximately 700 were wounded.
This is a weapon for political control as much as for war. They already have more nukes than they can reasonably use. What is the point of building a non-radiactive bomb this powerful? The only reason seems to be so you can retake the territory soon after. They're going to use it on their own territory.
They call it 'Britney'
Anyone actually within the blast would be almost instantly killed by the overpressure shock.
Anyone hit by the shockwave at a close distance would die from the massive concussion of the shockwave impact.
Exactly like any other large ordinance.
Being shot through any one of a number of internal organs would be a much more painful death.
Get some perspective, please.
If only the Russians had developed this in the 80s they would have won in Afghanistan(by using these to clear the cave complexes) and Afghanistan would be a nice quite developed nation based on exports of oil, dry fruits and buddhist religious tourism instead of being the cradle of vicious terrorism. A Soviet victory in Afghanistan would have also meant Osama would be just another failed mujahiddin with no following and the Africa bombings, 9/11, Spain bombings and all the other shit would not have happened. Sigh if only communism was still alive the world would be so much a nicer place. Its not communism per se but the balance of power which ensured a relatively peacefull period of time in the late 20th century.
**Life is too short to be serious**
This bomb made Chuck Norris sneeze.
As others have noted, you generally get much more militarily useful effect with multiple small weapons rather than one large one.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
I know its great to blame things on bush, but come on. Russia tests a big bomb and its bush's fault? What they are jealous of his hurricane machine nicknamed "katrina".
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Fuel Air Devices aren't really that interesting, from a fundamental engineering standpoint. Scaling them up isn't that hard -- you just add more fuel. Eventually you run into delivery problems. Like the Tsar Bomba (the Russkies giant H-bomb), it's more of a question of priorities than design ability. You can scale a hydrogen bomb up pretty much arbitrarily, by adding more tritium; similarly, FADs can be made bigger simply by adding more fuel and then changing the dispersion calculations accordingly (so that you achieve the right fuel/air mix at the right target altitude). The real question is 'why would you bother?' It's probably easier to drop twice as many bombs of half the size, than one really monster bomb, in most combat scenarios.
I don't really doubt that you could make a FAD that's bigger than the MOAB. They have more real-world experience in the area than other nations -- they used FADs extensively in Chechnya -- and have shown a propensity in the past for building "the biggest" simply for the penis-length factor. That doesn't mean that the rest of the world should be rushing out to do the same thing, or really care.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Dasvedanya dad.
Befitting of a Slashdotter, of course.
Linky for the knowledge-challenged....
Nukes still win that on that score. Serious burns combined with your digestive system rotting inside your body would be worse than the burns suffered from a fuel air bomb.
In my experience, when you catch fire, it actually doesn't hurt all that much. It has to do with the shock I think, but it's only afterwards that the real pain happens. If someone is close enough to be covered with or inhale fuel, I doubt very much whether they'd would survive the shockwave long enough to experience the pain of burning, especially when you consider it looks like this thing is designed to maximise the shock wave.
I'm not defending it by the way. All these weapons are reminders that a lot of humanity are very primitive and/or stupid. I'm just pointing out that nukes have all the same features as these with the added filth later.
I don't therefore I'm not.
Not useless no. You have to be careful how and where you use it, but that applies to all specialist munitions. Like nuclear bombs, it is the kind of thing that gets used once or twice in a century, but that doesn't make it useless. In the late 20th century, South Africa used two of these devices to destroy two enormous terrorist camps in southern Angola. These camps were dug in and spread out over very large areas, which made it very hard to remove any other way, so they waited for a calm day with no wind and took them out.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
When will they learn, it's the width of the explosion that counts.
can this kill all cockroachs?
Father Of All Beowulf Clusters
How can anyone be so stupid?? How many different ways do you need "Soviet Naval Aviation" to be spelled before you realize you're a dumbass?
Actually, slavery literally took place in many capitalist nations, including America. If the government hadn't stepped in, it would still be happening today. In some capitalist countries, it still is happening! You're just cherry-picking to suit your thesis, and you're holding communism to a much higher standard than you hold capitalism. Review the facts and try again.
Please...
As the most basic of examples, New York City tried to succeed from the union because its financial backers depended on slave cotton. The US was _built_ on slave labor after all (both african and asian).
Historically and currently, capitalism has gone hand in hand with physical slavery and poor working conditions/sweatshops that leave people no options other than the "choice" to work and that limit ethical/caring business owners from providing for their employees because major corporations have broad government support/subsidies and complete control of distribution systems.
See this link for a small American bomb http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/clmf/faeseq.html
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
The Russians seem to think so.
In 1999, the Russian Army evacuated the city of Grozny of civilians, leaving (obstensibly) only the dug-in insurgents in the city. Russian forces then cordoned the city and laid waste to it with massive barrages of fuel-air munitions, delivered via TOS-1. The city was totally destroyed.
That was using Fuel-Air Explosives (FAE's), which use aerosolized hydrocarbon-based fuel. Judging from the mass-to-yeild ratio reported for this new bomb (~5.5x that of TNT), it's an aluminum-based thermobaric munition. Thermobarics use aluminum (or less commonly boron) based fuel, distributed and usually detonated by high explosive charge. Compared to fuel-air bombs this results in greater reliability, more energy released per unit mass, and much more energy released per unit volume (since 75% aluminum + 25% composition-B HE is about 2.5x denser than hydrocarbon-based fuels).
For what it's worth: (1) the old-generation american fuel-air explosives used ethylene oxide as their fuel, which increased reliability but at the expense of energy density. (2) the american armed forces have aluminum-based thermobaric munitions in their inventories, too.
And yeah, comparing FAE's and thermobarics to nukes is misleading. Thermobarics can offer up to ~8x the energy density of conventional high explosives, but even small nukes generate thousands times more boom per unit weight. Nukes are the cheap and easy way to destroy a city, but the Russians decided the political price would be too high, and used FAE's instead (which are much cheaper than equivalent-yield high explosives, but nowhere nearly as cheap per unit yield as nukes).
-- TTK
In Soviet Russia, bomb tests you!
But that's obvious from his post, isn't it?
Seriously, why the hell would they need such a thing ? Wars were last millenium! If Russia wants to play god and blow stuff up, I'm just going to start calling them USA 2.0 and see if they like it.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
I, for one, welcome our new Russian.... wait, what year is it?
I've never understood why reporters brag about how the tu-160 is the heaviest bomber ever created. That's like bragging that a sports car is the heaviest sports car ever created. Weight lowers fuel efficiency and thus reduces speed. The fact is, the B-1 can carry almost 5X the number of bombs compared to the tu-16.
>>Fuel air bombs ... mostly just char a lot of stuff and clear the area of life.
Perfect. How many would we need to rid the northern parts of Pakistan of all life? A little charring is acceptable.
Fight Fire With Fire
If I was going to try and vocalize the concept of evil. I'd say it lay quite close to someone claiming the death of 10,000 people makes for a quaint city. Were you joking then? I mean, saying "Y'know it'd really do if a couple million New Yorkers died. It'd make the place a little less stuffy." Doesn't that strike you as terrifyingly horrible? I mean, they are people after all. Even you don't think they smell nice.
I'd bet that you wouldn't ever think of dying to make your city a bit quainter for others, would you?
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. - Hunter S. Thompson
Yeah, "why bother" was the first thing that came to my mind. How many situations call for a large single explosion over a large area that I can think of. Probably just a lack of imagination on my part, but it seems like a more precise attack would be more useful on armored targets, and a napalm strike would be better and easier for toasting soft targets over a large area. Wouldn't both of those alternatives fit the target area better than one giant circle of indiscriminate boomyness:P?
If the hapless old drunk hadn't managed to get control of the Kremlin and
essentially enrich his friends while making "democracy" look like the worst
idea the Russians had seen since the arrival of collective farms and 5 year
plans, then perhaps they wouldn't have taken so quickly to the first reasonably
competent strongman to come along.
The expansion into Eastern Europe and the missile shield thing haven't helped,
it's true. But Putin's power derives from his ability to look strong and in
control (which is something that couldn't ever have been said of old Boris
Nikolayevich). The ongoing problems with Chechnya and Ingoshetia, play right
into his authoritarianism, too.
Let's hope president Chavez won't get himself one of these. He can surely afford them. This government should go after this maniac, he's a much bigger threat to the free world.
Why do you know that?
How much greenhouse gases does it produce?
It's not the size of the weapon, but how you use it. >.>
;)
Then again anecdotal evidence strongly suggests depth of penetration into the other's 'territory' directly influences the results.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Your sig fits your comment somewhat squickily...
F*ck Off And Burn.
Oh, no! I already doubted this. It is DOOMSDAY-DEVICE!! thats it, we are done!!!
Communism to work relies on an idealized version of humans, one that is not lazy or greedy. It is very simple at its core, the whole "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," thing. However that assumes that people are willing to work hard at the job given to them, even if it isn't what they really want and even if there's no difference in benefit doing so. It also assumes that they are willing to take only what they need, no more, so that others can have what they need.
Well that proves not to be human nature. It can work on a small scale, but as a whole humans are lazy and greedy.
Capitalism seeks to play one on the other. You don't get to have anything just for existing, you have to work for things. So if you want stuff, you work. The more you want, the more you need to work. It uses greed to overcome laziness. Not a perfect system, but it at least does seem to work and create a functioning economy.
In reality we don't go for unrestricted capitalism in any country I'm aware of, but even the more socialist nations are based on capitalism. The government may take more of your money, and more of the basics may be provided at a common expense, but you still have to work if you want more, and working can get you more if you are willing to do it.
Like it or not, it is just what makes economies grow and seems to make life better for everyone. While capitalism isn't good at ensuring everyone gets an equal slice of the pie, it makes the pie grow large enough everyone gets more. Communism is so concerned with giving everyone an equal slice (except the leaders of course) at all costs that the pie ends up being very small and you have less.
The bomb, George. The fuel-air bomb. Well now what happened is, one of our base commanders, he had a sort of, well he went a little funny in the head. You know. Just a little... funny. And uh, he went and did a silly thing. Well, I'll tell you what he did, he ordered his planes... to attack your country. Well let me finish, George. Let me finish, George. Well, listen, how do you think I feel about it? Can you imagine how I feel about it, George? Why do you think I'm calling you? Just to say hello? Of course I like to speak to you. Of course I like to say hello. Not now, but any time, George. I'm just calling up to tell you something terrible has happened. It's a friendly call.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
...it only destroys half of everything.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
I thought I was da bomb.
Seriously, spending so much time, effort, money and resources on something so utterly useless. Think about the possibilities of where this all would be better spent on. I know this comment will probably inspire a lot of morons to reply that it _is_ useful, or even more moronic 'jokes' from people who simply have no clue of what they're saying.
And isn't this a country that could use every penny to help their own people? Really sad, and pointless. I love to hear a good motivation why it would be useful. I can't think of any. And let's be honest, the only use for a bomb of this size would be death and destruction. Makes me so sad to think about it. Wars are useless too.
I love this quote and believe it with my entire soul: "What you resist persists. - Carl Jung"
Because he is Edward Teller, you insensitive clod!
And that was last time anyone (but the TLA men in black) saw Xonstantine.
If nuclear fusion weapon possession is prohibited, only the criminals... oh, wait!
Well, I think it's implicit in his post that by "explosive power" he means.... "explosive power", namely a specific kind of energy release
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
Well, Chicago *was* levelled by the Great Fire about a century ago. It's also far, far nicer than NY with (as the OP claimed about Halifax) big city facilities and a small-town feel. Interestingly, it's also a city on a major transport bottleneck (rails from the midwest / ships on the great lakes) which couldn't be abandoned after the disaster.
I guess the moral of this is, if you want a big city that's actually a nice place rather than a big pile of people in boxes, have it blown up a century ago.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLEVE
Not really. In fact, it's outright wrong. English doesn't have genders, every object is inherently an "it", so slapping a "she" is pretty arbitrary. Most other languages have inherent genders of each noun, and they're spread evenly across all genders. It's not whether you want to think of an object as "he" or "she" for psychological reasons, it's that your ancestors already decided it for you.
To it, if you want to know about Germans and noun genders, a tank, ("Panzerkampfwagen" = "Armoured Fighting Vehicle", pretty literally) gets its gender from the last bit, the noun it's based on, namely "Wagen", which is "der Wagen", i.e., masculine all the way.
Some items even change gender in the same paragraph if you use different words for it. For example a car can be "der Wagen" (masculine) and "das Auto" (neutral) in the same paragraph.
Other things, well, make me wonder what my ancestors were thinking there. A fist is "die Faust", so it's feminine. Ditto for the hand, "die Hand". Other than, umm, self-satisfaction I can't think of any objective reason for that. The sun is feminine too, so it's "die Sonne". Quite the opposite of, say, the ancient Egyptians, which worshipped the sun invariably as a male god. Etc.
On the other hand "Mädchen" (girl) or the now largely obsolete "Fräulein" (Miss, as in Miss Eva Braun) are both neutral. It seems a bit illogical, when you think of it, that a big ball of fire in the sky or a hand would be feminine, but a girl would be an "it". Actually, the rule there is that diminutives are always "it", so applying a diminutive endearing-kinda term to anything turns it into an "it". (In English you'd probably consider it anything but endearing to be called "it", but there you go.)
To get back to military stuff, a bomb isn't an "it", but a "she". "Die Bombe". A plane is "it" indeed. "Das Flugzeug", but becomes masculine if it's a bomber ("der Bomber"). A pistol or SMG is feminine. Etc.
It's really spread across all genders, really.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
You're "shocked, just shocked!"?
Of course I wouldn't wish harm upon another person, and certainly not 10,000 of them. But that doesn't mean I'm incapable of seeing demographic patterns and making comments upon them. The world doesn't go away just because it happens to not fit with with moral code. Sheesh.
-FL
Blaming the mistakes of Russia on the "anti-intellectualism" of your president is grossly overstating your own importance. Russia is quite capable of making its own mistakes.
Put it this way, if a neighbour (who you hate and who hates you) down the street rigs up a gun in their yard and says it's a defense system against you, then sure it's a defense system against you.
;).
But if that neighbour puts the gun in the yard of your next door neighbour, then while it might still be a "defense system against you" and still not quite "gun to your head" "defense", it doesn't quite give you the same warm fuzzy feeling of "defense against you", hope you know what I mean
In other words it sure seems the US likes to do defense in an offensive manner.
Then look at some posters here saying the Mig 25 sucks because it has short range. While that "short range" might make it hard for a country like the USA to attack another country (naturally to defend itself from that evil country), that's not such a big problem if you're only using it to intercept stuff that's entered YOUR country.
Same for the big bomb - sure it's useless in destroying fortified stuff. But in your territory the fortified buildings are mostly yours, and the bomb sure works fine on "trespassers" (troops, supply vehicles, relatively lightly fortified camps).
Same for nukes that can't destroy hardened targets. Yes they're useless for a first strike, but if you have enough of them, maybe the USA won't do that first strike on you (or at least you can have bitter revenge).
A lot of that "crappy" russian stuff isn't so bad if you mainly have defense in mind.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Russians are good guys (hah!), but at least they rarely go around pretending or believing they are.
Next the USA will come out with the Grandfather of all Bombs. Sweet, we need a good arms race with Russia. I mean the economy isn't looking all that great. A good arms race always stimulates economic growth.
1) due to limited land unless you build 30 stories up
2) limit due to available water
3) limit due to landfills, we make more rubbish now
4) limit in public transport and road space, we cannot build more than you can only fit so many in one train (1000)
Imagine humans like bacteria on a dish or a rotten apple, there is a limit until the bacteria eats/consumes ALL its resources and ends up dieing it self out and reducing the population.
So if the death rate is 1%, but you grow population by 2% and thus cause more demand for housing & ipods & cell phones & food, prices go up! businesses grow, more night
clubs get made, more shops get built, more of everything grows.
But simply increasing the people count wont solve everything, eventually you turn into tokyo x 100. Just run a graph of 1-2% over 150 years, 2150 is going to be hell!
No one is againts the people/race themselves, just excessive growth, more competition in the work place... and you do get the bad batch of wierdos and people who cannot
adjust and just are a menace.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Only after nuking your bank accounts!
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
The biggest problem with the Space Shuttle is that it is mounted sideways on the fuel tank, rather than on top, like a "normal" rocket. Were the shuttle "on top", then you wouldn't have the problem of ice and foam whacking the space plane on lift off, which killed one shuttle and its crew, ultimately, and damaged more.
Buran had the same problem.
What Buran excelled in, ironically, was avionics. The Buran could be remotely flown from the ground, so that, they could test it without astronauts. In such a mode, you could decrew the space plane, bring them down in a soyuz, and then remotely fly the buran for a landing. Might lose a vehicle but won't lose the crew.
This is my sig.
As Several people have pointed out The FOAB is a Thermobaric Weapon. The basic Principles behind this type of weapon is simple. Disperse a cloud of a special flammable material, then ignite the material.
There are several key factors than come into play when working with modern thermobaric weapons.
Fuel: This can be from simple aerosol Gasoline to exotic long burning chemical gels. This part is very key as The longer the chemical burns and releases energy the more air is displaced. This means that for this devices purpose High Explosives are NOT ideal but simply easier to handle and more predictable.
Dispersal pattern: How the fuel is spread out is key because you can fine tune your shockwaves shape and focus this way.
Ignition Point: This goes hand in hand with the Dispersal Pattern. Once you shape your Fuel's air mass you want to begin detonation a point that compliments the eventual shockwave you want to create.
Does this N2 bombs kill angels?
Is this a thermobaric bomb?
When the US dropped the BOMBS on Hiroshima/Nagasaki, Japan's leaders had no idea what it really was.
Their best guess was that the US had seeded the atmosphere with combustible gas and powdered magnesium and lit it off all at once.
Sounds pretty much like what this bomb really is.
Looks like someone's W.A.G. became reality.
Cruise at mach 3+ for HOURS? Not burst - CRUISE.
Calling the MiG-25 and "engineering achievement" when compared to what other contemporary planes could do is like calling a Yugo an engineering improvement over a Volkswagen because the Yugo is cheaper.
And hell, didn't the SR-71 predate the MiG-25 by a decade or so?
Between destroyed engines and engines-destroyed/airframe-destroyed/pilot-dead it would take the former every time. Wouldn't you?
Either one has the same effect: one less mission-capable airplane.
Hell, that's an easy way to take out a MiG-25 - just put the pilot in a position where he's really motivate to go FAST. You don't even need to shoot it down, or even really shoot at it, for that matter.
peace is not a state of nonviolence. peace is a state of balanced potential for violence: if you hit me, i'll hit you back
there is no such thing as nonviolence, as human nature itself is rife with conflict, both valid and invalid. this is the fate of mankind- now, for all time before, and all time in the future, to live in conflict
the idea is to create structures where those conflicts get expressed and resolved in nonviolent ways: debates in a house of representatives, or the courts. however, there will still be degenerate psychologies, constantly reborn anew in every generation, who will seek power via violence. and so, unfortunately, you must always protect against them with force of arms. forever. no amount of education or good will will counteract the creation of such people, or their blood lust. it's simple statistical inevitability. if you understand that forevermore there will exist pedophiles, due to biology and aberations in developmental psychology, then you understand it is the same with the creation of demagogues. forever
you seem to think that if you lay down your arms, someone else will lay down theres. no, what happens is if you lay down your arms, some demagogue, seeking to secure power through xenophobia and a circling of the wagons psychological effect, will posit an "us" versus "them" and promptly slaughter you
in other words, you need to remain armed, forever. you seem to think all human beings on this planet have the potential to be jesus christ or siddhartha gautama. no, some are simply degenerate. you can educate every single child in the way of peace and love, some will still wind up being vicious assholes. such that, to protect against such inevitable monstrosities, you, the good guy, must arm and defend yourself
this is our nature. make peace with that fact, no pun intended, or continue to rtail against simple human nature, to no effect at all except to demonstrate that you don't understand the world you live in and what and whom it is populated by
simply wishing that humanity was something it is not will not make humanity so. you are not an idealist, you are simply uneducated and naive
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The U.S. has a 14-ton super bomb more destructive than the vacuum bomb just tested by Russia, a U.S. general said Wednesday.
The statement was made by retired Lt. General McInerney, chairman of the Iran Policy Committee, and former Assistant Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force.
http://en.rian.ru/world/20070913/78518873.html
but how can you blame someone else's venom on his actions?
it's like i sat on the hood of your car, so therefore, it's understandable that you shoot me in the head. that's your logic at work dude
no, darling, gw bush is a retarded drunk. but he's not an autocrat (putin) or a fundamentalist (ahmacrazyguy)
AND he will be gone in a year. at which point, i look forward to your new creative magical thinking whereby you blame other people's essential viciousness on a domestic scapegoat
rather than simply accepting that there are bigger assholes in the world than gw bush
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
In Russia, unlike in the United States, fathers are not considered inhuman income sources whose existence is not really necessary except to pay child support.
capitalism creates vastly more capital than communism
such that, it makes the rich very, very rich, but it also trickles down to the poorest of the poor in terms of higher standards of living (charity, taxes, etc.)
communism says that the poor are still protected. but it does that by bringing everyone down to their standards of living. such that the poor (meaning, everybody) in communist countries are actually poorer than the poor in capitalist countries
so which is more important to you? limiting the gap between rich and poor in the name of social justice? or bringing the standard of living of EVERYONE to a higher plane? well, if you are all about envy, then choose communism and have everyone suffer. or, choose capitalism and suffer the odiousness of social injustice, but everyone suffers less
so capitalism sucks. but it is a hell of a lot better than communism. so please, criticize capitalism if you want, but don't think you'll look anything but foolish by comparing it to communism
in fact, this was cited as a source of the fall of communism: i forget the citation but the communists made a propaganda campaign to show how badly the poor in the west lived compared to the rich. but the masses under communism saw the poor in the west had things like televisions and microwaves. so this particular propaganda totally backfired, because the communist masses learned that it is better to be poor under capitalism than to be amongst the communist masses
so yes, the social injustice of standards of living difference between the rich and the poor under capitalism is disgusting. but it is MORE disgusting for the masses under communism than it is for the poor under captalism
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I think the term "environmentally friendly" is a reference to the residue left after the explosion. Apparently the ground after a conventional high explosive detonation is very toxic. I remember reading that the United States has been is working on a more environmentlly friendly explosive for at least ten years.
The motivation for making an explosive less toxic is because 80% of all weapons produced are used in training and not combat - resulting in large areas of friendly territory (often training grounds) that are hazardous to life and very expensive to clean up.
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
you can give a hostage taker $1 million and secure the release of hostages unharmed
but then you inspire 100 more assholes to take hostages
at some point, you have to fight people who are a lot more vicious than you
bush is a low grade idiot. and he will be gone in a year. the regime in n korea, russia, iran will be unchanged. but you can't blame the bumbling fool for what are essntially vile and evil regimes
you are honestly telling me that bush bears responsibility for bad relations with what are essentially what are bad people?
no. at some point, you siply have to accept you are dealing with bad people
and blame them for their venom. not the moron in the white house
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Really, they can just shut down the gas pipeline in the middle of the winter and watch Europe surrender.
.471 ZJ in 2004.[10]
Maybe in the short term, but in the long term ppl are starting to realize
that the insane amount of solar power hitting the earth can be collected
with something as simple as mirrors in the form of heat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power#Energy_from_the_Sun
* The total solar energy available to the earth is approximately 3850 zettajoules (ZJ) per year.[5]
* Oceans absorb approximately 285 ZJ of solar energy per year.[6]
* Winds can theoretically supply 6 ZJ of energy per year.[7]
* Biomass captures approximately 1.8 ZJ of solar energy per year.[8][9]
* Worldwide energy consumption was
This is not even considering the wind power, tidal power, sewer methane capture,
and a host of other technologies coming along to transition the planet off oil and gas.
Small Hydro power is also viable:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_hydro
In time, renewable and alternative will replace the fossil fuels for heat and electricity.
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
The same reason why I know what the LD/50 of Parathion is. I used to work in a safety department!
Bigger Bigger Bombs are useless.
Discentralized Unintelligence Agency wins against C.I.A.
In my day, Soviet Union created world's largest Micro Chip!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Not totally true. "Explosive power" could also mean the ability of the bomb to knock stuff down on the ground (i.e., what someone might refer to as a 'powerful' explosion), which would have more to do with the characteristics of the pressure wave rather than the net energy produced. When it's being used outside a physics/engineering context, 'power' is a bit of a vague term.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
what you have just done is educated me in the ways of nonviolence. i understand them darling. the point here is not to evangelize to me. the point is you aren't understanding what i am saying: i am saying there exists people you can't educate in the ways of nonviolence. that there are people who would listen to your words, and ignore them, and go right on with their violent ways
it all comes down to how you view human nature: are we vessels of purity which are corrupted by society into violence? or are we raging feral shit-flinging feral monkeys that society educates to express our inherent violent tendencies into nonviolent means?
spend 5 minutes with a roomful of 3 year olds
i rest my case
99% of those 3 year olds can be educated into the ways of nonviolence
it is the other 1% which means you must forever have the means at your disposal to go to deadly force to defend yourself
and that 1% will always be born anew, in every generation, for all time to come
accept that fact. accept physical violence as something you must still go to defend that which deserves defending from psychologically degenerate demagogues, that will always be born anew. that will always threaten good people. forever, in all cultures
or don't. and prove your lack of education on the nature of humanity
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
with a true believer
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
(this is off topic but whatever.)
:D, I don't know why we can't say stolet and bordet or stolen and borden, actually we do say "borden", but then we are talking about "the tableS" ;D
Over here in Sweden objects are objects and therefor gender neutral (atleast what I can think of), however we have two neutral forms, "en stol / stolen" = a chair / the chair, "ett bord / bordet" = a table / the table. So over here it's "en bomb / bomben" for a bomb / the bomb. Points to the english people for not messing it up thought
stolen = the chair
en stol = a chair
stolarna = the chairs
bordet = the table
ett bord = a table
borden = the tables
For the people who do care about languages, why is beyond me, I hate them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_language
Honestly, I do not see why anyone should worry about this. That bomb is not very useful, and is not much of a threat.
The thing that makes Nuclear weapons more dangerous is the amount of destructive power considering their size. They can be delivered by smaller, stealthier aircraft, or ballistic missiles.
Large bombs like this one and MOAB need large, slower bombers which are easy marks for any air defenses these days.
We can start worrying when they find a way to put these on ballistic missiles (they are probably far too large and heavy).
First up: Ukraine! Ukraine is weak. He did not dissolved the parliament, he accepted the resignation of PM(if PM resigns then the cabinet of ministers is also dissolved). The parliament is not going anywhere till the end of mandate(Early next year).
is that no matter what you do, there will be those who choose violence. no matter what you do. you must be ready for them. and the only way to protect from violence is violence of your own
in your world, a crazed guy with a sword could kill hundreds of people, just mow them down one by one, and in your nonviolent nirvana, they would all just stand there and allow their jugulars to be severed as they preached nonviolence to the maniac
no: the superior world is one where after his first attempted swordplay, somebody shoots the cracked pot
this is in fact a more peaceful world than yours, with less death and suffering, and it is a world that accepts the essential violence of mankind
nonviolence isn't superior. it's a form of inertness that chooses to die rather than fight those who kill for bad reasons. nonviolence is a way of suffering and death because there will be those who kill for bad reasons, always. and nonviolence chooses to allow these horribly violent people to exist, unharmed. no matter the level of education, statistical anomalies always exist
and you face bad reasons for killing with the only tool you can: the one and only good reason for killing, which is: kill those who try to kill with bad reasons
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It is indeed an impressive weapon, is uses brand new fuel with even more devastating power. Yet it has its weaknesses.
You cannot use this bomb when it's windy/rainy - you'll get no fuel cloud to ignite. While being good at destroying all living in area, it is not so useless against armored vehicles. A proper sealed tank is able to survive the explosion flawlessly even in the epicenter of the explosion.
Still, a great number of those bombs will surely wreak havoc on every front line if properly deployed. It is also extremely useful against terrorist groups. A "Buratino" flamethrower (do not think about old-style RTCW flamethrowers, it's more like a rocket tank) has been very useful in Chechnya, eliminating snipers and even bigger groups of terrorists. Later, the rumors of "Buratino"'s arrival were enough to drastically reduce attacks and terrorist activity in the given region.
As for Russia gearing up its military - well, it's not Russia who broke the conventions and began to rebuild anti-rocket shield (against what terrorists, btw?), it's not Russia installing military bases in Eastern Europe and Asia, it's not Russia trying to install parts of its anti-missile system in Eastern Europe (what missile-equipped terrorists are expected there?).
The only reason Russia is equipping its military with multi-headed warheads able to penetrate any anti-rocket shield is following: Imagine a full-scaled nuclear war. The first one who attacks will deal a great (even irreversible) damage for the opponent. The only thing matters after this is the ability of the attacked country to respond after the initial strike and do an irreversible damage to the attacker. Russia's simply want the ability to respond if attacked. Russia doesn't have a missile shield and the USA has the biggest nuclear arsenal on the planet (and is the only country who actually used nuclear weapons). Russia is simply to big to protect itself from a possible counterattack properly and the USA's arsenal is too big to be destroyed in a single attack (also stationed in many countries). So Russia relies on its own arsenal to act as their protection. That's why it plans to equip the troops with a great number of MOBILE multi-warheaded platforms. Those are not very useful if you plan to attack first, but are likely to survive in an initial strike and deal irreversible damage to the attacker.
Typical.
/. community.
Russia builds an uber-bomb and the technological merits are discussed. If America would have built and tested such a bomb, America would have been roasted by the
Very, very typical.
but i understand something of the gita's message that inaction is a crime on the battlefield
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Since it doesn't give off nuclear radiation, its presence is much harder to detect. Give it ten years before a rogue nation gets a hold of one and send it on a cargo container to the port city of your choice. Downtown NY will always remain a target of choice for terrorists, and these are the kind of military developments that we should fear the most! i wish they would stick to star wars and fighter jet development. :(
Wouldn't it be ironic if Iran were prevented from developing nuclear weapons only to find that they then developed fuel air bombs using a resource that they had in far more abundant supply than uranium? Moreover, wouldn't it be ironic if the ubiquitous availability of fuel in civilization enabled terrorists, gangs, etc. to bring down civilization?
Seastead this.
The US already has a bomb that works in the same manner. (Barometric bomb I believe [ something like that]) So i guess Russia one upped it and made a bigger one. Anyways for video, for those who want to see. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6990815.stm
Where these things are useful is when you have to prep dug-in infantry, guys in caves or bunkers or even foxholes. The trick is to disperse to fuel, and let it settle into the nooks, crannies and holes that we legs like to hide in then detonate; then all the battlements we build to keep out the high impulse bomb nastiness then keeps the low-impulse nastiness in.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
LOL Yeah those bad ole Russians. The tactics are no different than those used by the US in Fallujah. Personally I loved the smiles on the yank terrorist leaders as they chuckled about the shake and bake tactics being employed. Nothing like enjoying your job! But those bad ole russkies.
lie flat on the ground, put your hands on your heads and you'll not get touched at all. it worked in south park so why shouldn't it work here?
FWIW, I wasn't trying to call the russians "bad", merely describing their tactics.
-- TTK
I can't help but be reminded of that classic DK song Kill the Poor while reading through these comments.
Curiosity. Designing a nuclear bomb is easy--Rodney did it in middle school--the hard part is finding the materials to make the bomb.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
"Regardless, burns are the most painful injuries you can possibly suffer from"
I suggest that in the future, you actually know what you're talking about instead of just acting like you do.
"Third-degree burns additionally have charring of the skin, and produce hard, leather-like eschars. An eschar is a scab that has separated from the unaffected part of the body. Frequently, there is also purple fluid. These types of burns are often painless because nerve endings have been destroyed in the involved areas."
See that "painless" part. Pretty much refutes your statement in its entirety.
As to the most painful, I think getting shot in the gut and dying a week later after your own feces has been leaking into your abdomen is pretty bad. In fact, that's what I've heard is the worst, but I'm not claiming it outright like you are because I'm smart enough to know I haven't done the research.
Lastly, if we really want to talk about painful, try VX
"Normally, an electric nerve pulse would cause the release of acetylcholine over a synapse that would stimulate muscle contraction. The acetylcholine is then broken down to non-reactive substances (acetic acid and choline) by the acetylcholinesterase enzyme. If more muscle tension is needed the nerve must release more acetylcholine. VX blocks the action of acetylcholinesterase, thus resulting in sustained contractions of all the muscles in the body. Sustained contraction of the diaphragm muscle causes death by asphyxiation."
All your muscles spasm pretty much simultaneously, so you take on something of a pretzel shape while having a heart attack and suffocating.
Getting To Know Russian President Vladimir Putin (Through Pictures)
After he leaves office (unless he declares himself the Supreme Soviet for life), Hollywood should hire him to play the next Bond villian. The last picture is priceless.
sudo eat my shorts
Capitalism isn't negative one woman giving disadvantage of the same woman
Does that sound about right? Then again, I read slashdot, so I don't know much about women anyway...
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
According to this article (note the .ru TLD) USA has a bigger bomb. It's funny how every state makes its population fear the other state.
Oil has just hit $80 a barrel. A fuel bomb might cost more than the property its blowing up. Also, the enemy might try to intercept it just to steal the fuel.
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
The description of this weapon makes it seem like a supersized daisy cutter. It is a sloppy weapon in an era when accuracy and the prevention of collateral damage are important: CNN and Al-Jazeera will show the world two versions of any sloppiness in the munitions.
The cost, especially when you factor in maintenance of the delivery vehicles [think of the accidents the Russians have had with their large but rusting nuke subs], for massive weapons has a nasty rising curve of unreliability or MTBF as a function of increasing throw-weight.
Just because it is possible to build a bigger air-fuel bomb does not mean it is profitable [in a strategic sense].
Instant dinosaur. A sabre made only for rattling.
I can only think of how many terrorist alerts this will bring up, from the NSA catching all of those keywords of "nuclear" "bomb" when people say to each other (phone, IM, etc.): "Hey, did you see that slashdot article about a bomb that has the same power as a nuclear bomb, but without the radiation?"
I know I'm reading this article a couple of days after it was posted, but did I miss the post that said:
"In Soviet Russia, bomb tests YOU!"
??