Russia Tests New Nanotech Vacuum Bomb On 11 September - Symbolic Statement

[MobBoss]

You got it, so you are proved wrong and ignorant.

Errr. Because of a rather unknown site from India says its so?

Got anything from a major news source that mentions nanotech? Perhaps Reuters didnt mention it because they couldnt verify it.

How about you explain to me how the nanotech helps precisely. Do you know?

Again, using such catch phrases like 'nanotech' is more a ploy to increase its appeal on the arms market....not in some huge leap in technology.

 

[BaneBlade]

Please dont call someone idiotic and then proceed to give wrong information. The genesis of these type of bombs is that they are used to clear areas of Jungle so helicopters could land....later generations were used in attempts to clear minefields via the overpressure created by the FAE. In Afghanistan the usage isnt to kill people via explosions, but to actually suck the oxygen out of cave systems via the vacuum created.

They are not, and have not been created to take out sections of city blocks for example. When they are described as 'being able to take out x city blocks' it is more a reference to the weapons footprint effect as opposed to actual use against several city blocks.

Likewise small nukes weren't designed to take out city blocks. That the actual
working mechanism isn't the same doesn't prove my statement wrong, i was speaking about intentions.

 

[Provolution]

I think people buying arms at procurement got better judgement than you on those things MobBoss. They spend billions of researched dollars, where you are here, flaming me over this news article.

 

[MobBoss]

I think people buying arms at procurement got better judgement than you on those things MobBoss. They spend billions of researched dollars, where you are here, flaming me over this news article.

Flaming you? No. I merely pointed out that your title was incorrect given the sources you included.

Also, none of your storys give such testimoney from 'people buying arms at procurement'. The bollywood link offers the ever nebulous 'experts say' but then never mentions who these experts are or anything specific about what they say.

Again, I dont think it totally unreasonable to ask for a commonly accepted news source for information on the nanotech comment. ABC, CBS, APNews, BBC...etc. Should be easy to find on a story that big.....

 

[Provolution]

That is how the press works. You will see nanotech later in other media as well. When a story enters like this, the big media are more conservative. I know from several sources, of which some I cannot include here, that it is indeed nanotech, which is more widespread than you think.

 

[MobBoss]

That is how the press works.

I humbly disagree. If it is a big story, they will fight tooth and nail to be the first ones to report it to get the scoop.

You will see nanotech later in other media as well. When a story enters like this, the big media are more conservative. I know from several sources, of which some I cannot include here, that it is indeed nanotech, which is more widespread than you think.

Why cant you include those sources here?

 

[classical_hero]

"They have set us up the bomb."

 

[MobBoss]

Another news story, this time with some decent pics: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23411846-details/Russia+tests+the+world's+largest+ever+non-nuclear+bomb/article.do

But still no mention of the use of nanotech.

 

[Provolution]

Another news story, this time with some decent pics: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23411846-details/Russia+tests+the+world's+largest+ever+non-nuclear+bomb/article.do

But still no mention of the use of nanotech.

What if we had a bet on this, over money, would that make you feel good ?

 

[nivi]

Nanotech? How does that help a bomb design?

 

[Azash]

What if we had a bet on this, over money, would that make you feel good ?

I'm ready to bet you it would make MobBoss feel good, seeing as he would earn some more money. You have nothing on your side but your own words and sources conveniently too librul and secret to mention. Just admit it - there's no nanotech, just you trying to make yourself look important and knowledgeable.

 

[MobBoss]

What if we had a bet on this, over money, would that make you feel good ?

Rofl. First of all, I dont really think the russians definition of what 'nanotech' is and the wests idea of it are exactly the same thing. Secondly, you didnt answer my question in regards to the information you cant publish here. I mean come on....a little polonium never really hurt anyone now has it?

But the main reason I wouldnt bet money on this is going to be over the ambiguity of the term and its use. There just isnt anyway to define a clear 'winner' in that type of bet. Its not like a sports score.

Nanotech? How does that help a bomb design?

My question exactly. I could see where miniturization would need to be used in order to propel the aerosol bomblets over an adequate area to create that big of an explosion....but I dont see how nanotech could increase the temps of the explosion after it had been set off.

 

[warpus]

Very SMALL nuke. Small, tactical nuclear warheads have a yield which is comparable to conventional explosives.

Fuel-air explosives produce massive shock wave, but their size and dependance on the external factors (wind, rain etc.) preclude them from being a viable alternative to nuclear weapons.

Anything is a viable alternative to nuclear weapons, wouldn't you say?

 

[MobBoss]

Anything is a viable alternative to nuclear weapons, wouldn't you say?

Nope. I dont necessarily view the firebombing of Tokyo or Dresden in any better light than I do the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The method isnt necessarily as important in such considerations as the end result wouldnt you say? And if you in turn are able to kill thousands, upon thousands more with a conventional bomb sortie than you would with one nuke, then whose to say its a viable alternative?

 

[warpus]

Nope. I dont necessarily view the firebombing of Tokyo or Dresden in any better light than I do the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The method isnt necessarily as important in such considerations as the end result wouldnt you say? And if you in turn are able to kill thousands, upon thousands more with a conventional bomb sortie than you would with one nuke, then whose to say its a viable alternative?

Look at Hiroshima.

70,000 died right off the bat.
By the end of 1945, 90,000 to 140,000 were dead, due to burns and radiation.
By the end of 1950, The United States Department of Energy estimates that as many 200,000 might have died.

This is not counting the tens (hundreds?) of thousands who have been affected with various cancers, since.

Nuclear weapons do way more damage than the initial "kill". That's why they should not be used, ever again.

 

[BaneBlade]

Nope. I dont necessarily view the firebombing of Tokyo or Dresden in any better light than I do the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The method isnt necessarily as important in such considerations as the end result wouldnt you say? And if you in turn are able to kill thousands, upon thousands more with a conventional bomb sortie than you would with one nuke, then whose to say its a viable alternative?

I understand what you say, but isn't the real problem here the slippery slope/Pandora's box? Who is stopping us or the enemy side from using ever more and more bombs, with ever increasing yields after we started? Because there's no doubt nukes are the better solution, when ecological/ escalation problems are left out of the equation.

 

[Provolution]

Look at Hiroshima.

70,000 died right off the bat.

I did not know that American Baseball was this dangerous.

 

[Winner]

Anything is a viable alternative to nuclear weapons, wouldn't you say?

Eh, don't bring emotions into this. If you want a large explosion, you have to use a nuke. Furthermore, fuel-air bombs won't deter anybody from attacking you, nukes do.

 

[warpus]

Eh, don't bring emotions into this. If you want a large explosion, you have to use a nuke. Furthermore, fuel-air bombs won't deter anybody from attacking you, nukes do.

We're not talking deterrence, we're talking actually using the things... and in that case, anything but a nuke is preferable.

 

[MobBoss]

Look at Hiroshima.

70,000 died right off the bat.
By the end of 1945, 90,000 to 140,000 were dead, due to burns and radiation.
By the end of 1950, The United States Department of Energy estimates that as many 200,000 might have died.

This is not counting the tens (hundreds?) of thousands who have been affected with various cancers, since.

Nuclear weapons do way more damage than the initial "kill". That's why they should not be used, ever again.

Again, the firebombing of Tokyo also had its lasting effects and it resulted in over 100k dying right off the bat. People can also die years afterwards due to health problems from such conventional strikes as well...burning certain materials/chemicals also releases carcinogins into the air does it not, let alone damage from smoke inhalation. But since no data was compiled for this, you assume that the only deaths from the firebombings were those that died in the fire. I am willing to bet if such things were considered like they were for Hiroshima, the casualty count from the firebombing of Tokyo would be much, much higher.

My point is you dont necessarily need a nuke in order to kill a whole lot of people. At that point, again, the method is pretty much moot - dead is dead.