US have the 'mother of all bombs'

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
oh boy... here we go... off on another arms-race with Russia... yippieeeee!

that is one big %$^@! bomb though... DOH!
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,782
6,186
126
They should have called it Tsar Bomba, in the great Russian tradition of naming gynormous things Tsar.
I guess there was already a Tsar Bomba, a gynormous nuclear bomb.
They should have called this one Tsarina Bomba.
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
LOL at the fact that they mention it is "environmentally friendly" - bwahahaha.

4 times as more destructive as the "destroy 9 blocks at once" moabs...but don't worry guys~ its environmentally friendly!
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,348
3,426
126
Environmentally friendly as in it kills everything quickly without pain and suffering.

As for it being '4 times more powerful" I am not too worried about the Russian Air Force being able to drop too many bombs on anyone
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Exterous
Environmentally friendly as in it kills everything quickly without pain and suffering.

As for it being '4 times more powerful" I am not too worried about the Russian Air Force being able to drop too many bombs on anyone
Actually, by "environmentally friendly," I believe they meant that, unlike nuclear weapons, it would be safe to enter the area after this bomb explodes - as in, no radioactive fallout or contamination.

In other words, the bomb site wouldn't have to remain unpopulated for a few thousand years...
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Exterous
Environmentally friendly as in it kills everything quickly without pain and suffering.

As for it being '4 times more powerful" I am not too worried about the Russian Air Force being able to drop too many bombs on anyone
Actually, by "environmentally friendly," I believe they meant that, unlike nuclear weapons, it would be safe to enter the area after this bomb explodes - as in, no radioactive fallout or contamination.

In other words, the bomb site wouldn't have to remain unpopulated for a few thousand years...

Well, if and when people get vaporized by the father of all bombs, at least they'll die safe in the knowledge that the crater left behind won't be yucky.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,350
7,427
136
Originally posted by: magomago
LOL at the fact that they mention it is "environmentally friendly" - bwahahaha.

4 times as more destructive as the "destroy 9 blocks at once" moabs...but don't worry guys~ its environmentally friendly!

In other news, it's a great way to blow the resources used to create such bombs. It has to be finite, the question is how many can they make?
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
on paper Russian tech > U.S tech.

but U.S tech in the Israel-Arab Wars owned Russian tech. As well as the Gulf War.

so..... wonder if this is still true.
 

BrownTown

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
5,314
1
0
A bomb that big has absolutely no use whatsoever in any sort of conflict, it is all just dick measuring.
 

Colt45

Lifer
Apr 18, 2001
19,721
1
0
Originally posted by: Aimster
on paper Russian tech > U.S tech.

but U.S tech in the Israel-Arab Wars owned Russian tech. As well as the Gulf War.

so..... wonder if this is still true.

Israel vs. arab neighbours != USA vs. USSR


What if Israel had russian equipment, and the arabs had american? different outcome?

Training, leadership, morale and logistics make a hell of a difference in the grand scheme of things.

That said I still prefer Russian hardware ;)
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
on paper Russian tech > U.S tech.

True! They claim superiority, but so far, when Russian hardware meets U.S., the Russian stuff is not as advertised. Design is good in the Russian stuff, but when you get right down to it, it's lacking in the tech department. The Russians are fairly adept at overcoming their lack of tech ability though. They find novel solutions where the U.S. would abort the project under the same constraints!
 

tomywishbone

Golden Member
Oct 24, 2006
1,401
0
0
[deleted]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The deletion was done as a gift to avoid handing out a vacation.

Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy
 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Putin is desperately trying to divert his people's attention from their internal problems.

He is also trying to gain relevance in the world for Russia, which can only put on shows and not real maneuvors.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: BrownTown
A bomb that big has absolutely no use whatsoever in any sort of conflict, it is all just dick measuring.

By in large I believe its all just psychology. But to a certain extent, greater shock waves out of conventional bombs matter and that is our current problem in Iran. The nuclear facilities are buried so deeply underground, we are on the cusp between having to use nuclear powered bunker buster bombs to hope to have an effect.

Don't get me wrong, I sure am not advocating bombing anyone, but when some nut does bomb, it might be better to have something conventional in the arsenal able to the job rather than the same nut reaching for a nuclear powered flyswatter.

But it also begs the question of our future. Will we as a people have to dig our assets so deeply underground that they are too deep for a convention or even nuclear powered bombs to penetrate?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,083
5,611
126
Another result of Bush "Foreign Policy". Remember Bush Pre-9/11 for the clue, if you need one.
 

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
18,173
4,648
136
......does it really matter. It doesn't seem that it's the actual war that is the problem "winning" a conflict, but rather what happens afterwards. But if you just want the biggest boom in your arsenal, that's great.
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
101
106
As impressive as that big pretty explosion is, it's pretty worthless when you can barely project it beyond your own borders. Pretty hard to sneak a heavy strategic bomber with one of these things anywhere. These bombs, including the MOAB, are for show, because to use one you already have to have air superiority, at which point you can just drop regular ordinance on a target.
 

fallenangel99

Golden Member
Aug 8, 2001
1,721
1
81
I wonder if Russia well sell the weapon (or a smaller version) to Iran/Syra, countries who get its weapons from Russia?
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
As impressive as that big pretty explosion is, it's pretty worthless when you can barely project it beyond your own borders. Pretty hard to sneak a heavy strategic bomber with one of these things anywhere. These bombs, including the MOAB, are for show, because to use one you already have to have air superiority, at which point you can just drop regular ordinance on a target.

You mean that it isn't practical to drop a bomb from a C-130 under stealthy conditions?

What do they need to drop one of these things? That uber-plane they had?

Agreed, it's all show.
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,776
31
81
While Russian "tech" might look good on paper, there is something important that Russian tech lacks: quality (and maintenance).

I mean, just take a look at East Berlin, even 17 years after trillions of investment by West Germany, and you can still see the Communist made stuff falling apart. Same with Russian submarines, airplanes, etc.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Exterous
Environmentally friendly as in it kills everything quickly without pain and suffering.

As for it being '4 times more powerful" I am not too worried about the Russian Air Force being able to drop too many bombs on anyone
Actually, by "environmentally friendly," I believe they meant that, unlike nuclear weapons, it would be safe to enter the area after this bomb explodes - as in, no radioactive fallout or contamination.

In other words, the bomb site wouldn't have to remain unpopulated for a few thousand years...

But is this really a problem? This thing and the MOAB is competing with low yield tactical weapons. Something in the low kiloton range like a nagasaki or hiroshima weapon. Both of those cities populations repopulated and thrived.

I suppose there are political pluses to not using nuclear weapons and using something conventional with the same power.