Nequa

Join Date 09/2007

+14

Will Thermobaric weapons replace nuclear weapons?

Thermobaric weapons are probally not a well known weapon compared to others, but it should be become a hot topic. For those how dont know what I am talking about, A Thermobaric weapon is basically a massed heat and pressure weapon. If you whant more info go here at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/thermobaric.htm. The reason I am bringing this up is because while checking the internet I found out about Russia creating the most powefull Thermobaric weapon yet. It was able to destroy several multi-level apartments, and was equal to the lowest level of a dial a yeld bomb. It was called the father of all bombs (I may be wrong with the name so just bear with me). While may seem weak to some, just remeber this is new weapon and that it does not get that much attention. But if it gets more powefull it would be a problem. Since it would not have raditaon it would not be that deadly but that is also a problem. The reason why countrys dont like using nukes is because the place that gets hit would have massive raditaion and be unusable for a long time, thermobaric would not have that problem, the land would just be very burned, like tokeyo during the fire bomeing campaings during world war 2. If you have any other info about this go ahead and reply

off-topic

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

CobraA1

Join Date 09/2006

+26

But if it gets more powefull it would be a problem.

Possibly. But then again, how easy is it to scale it up? The whole reason why nuclear weapons can become so powerful so easily is because of the whole the chain reaction thing.

We've actually developed conventional weapons that are this powerful. I think the point of this particular weapon is to create a huge pressure wave, not to make bigger explosions in general. It sounds a bit more specialized, and would probably work better in some situations than others.

Hopefully, we'll never have to use weapons as powerful as nuclear weapons ever again in warfare.

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein

Successfully updated karma reason!

Possibly.But then again, how easy is it to scale it up? The whole reason why nuclear weapons can become so powerful so easily is because of the whole the chain reaction thing.We've actually developed conventional weapons that are this powerful. I think the point of this particular weapon is to create a huge pressure wave, not to make bigger explosions in general. It sounds a bit more specialized, and would probably work better in some situations than others.Hopefully, we'll never have to use weapons as powerful as nuclear weapons ever again in warfare."I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein

I also hope we dont have to use nukes or anything like them. Even though Thermobaric weapons may not get more powerfull then it is now, but it is still a powerfull weapon. Also thinking about the propertys of the weapon, heat and presure it gives me a nasty feeling. The presure will kill anything not in a bunker, and the heat will proally melt metale and keep vehicales from moving.

Successfully updated karma reason!

There will always be the "Ultimate" weapon in any Age of human development. As science marches on another "Ultimate Weapon" appears - I just prey we continue to have the common sense to treat these monstrous beasts with due Respect.

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein

Good 'ol Albert got that one right - regretably my faith in the Human Race means I believe that cycle could repeat itself

"I know not with what weapons World War V will be fought, but World War VI will be fought with sticks and stones."

As a Race, we are dumb enough to get into that repeat scenario, we seem to love the prospect of blowing each other to pieces. At least I wont be around to suffer the consequences

Regards
Zy

Successfully updated karma reason!

I can't really see anything surpasing the awesome power of nuclear weapons anytime in the near future. Nukes are the biggest threat, and now that everyone has them, some stupid country (North Korea) is gonna destroy the world.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Thanks, buddy, Oppenheimer just rolled over in his grave again.

"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds..."

Successfully updated karma reason!

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein

great Quote, that one.

Successfully updated karma reason!

While the only wars I promote are those held against the Drengin, I will say that I would hope that these weapons overtake nuclear weapons because, like you mentioned, these weapons would deliver the destructive force without decades-long, widespread collateral damage from the nuclear fallout of a conventional nuke. But on the other hand, perhaps its a good thing that the superpowers are dissuaded to use WMD's by the fallout damage they cause; creating a weapon like this might be seen as removing a barrier to war.

Successfully updated karma reason!

It's possible for the simple reason that passed the 1950's, most nuclear weapons produced have been actually fairly low yield weapons, geared not towards destruction of enormous proportions, but to be more numerous, accurate, but smaller weapons. The infamous "boomers" of the US Navy carry 24 Trident missiles each, each capable of having up to eight warheads of "just" 500 kilotons. That's still a lot, in the neighborhood of 50 times more powerful than the first atomic weapons, but still just a hundredth the strength of the strongest nuclear weapons ever tested.

Thermobaric weapons are still not very powerful compared to nuclear weapons, just usually just a small percentage of a kiloton in yield, but still large enough tactically to get many jobs done. But these weapons have been getting smaller, and yet more powerful, as the recent so called "Father of All Bombs" the Russians are currently testing.

This, combined with the obvious benefits of using such weapons most notably that there is no radiation, they are not as high risk in transport and security as nuclear weapons, and that they do not cross that imaginary line the international community has as what constitutes a non-conventional weapon, and it all looks very safe for the nation using it.

The souls on the receiving end do not have it so good, though. Though non-nuclear, they are still horrific weapons and deliver death quite different from a normal bomb that will kill with an outright explosion and shrapnel. They most rely on the massive heat in the immediate area, and the truly terrifying pressure wave, that can kill well outside the visual area of the weapon as well as people individuals in cover and positions that against many weapons would be relatively safe. Those pressure waves cause massive internal injuries, literally break people from the inside out and are just very unpleasant. Although there are probably worse ways to die from bombs (most notably incendiary weapons, like Napalm) they are still very nasty things. I've also read that the effects of any undetonated fuel from these weapons can be quite nasty if the device malfunctions.

Very mean weapons.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hmm...I'm afraid I don't quite agree that Thermobaric weapons can be placed on the same level as Nuclear weapons, no more than napalm can. IMHO, A more appropriate question would be "Will thermobaric weapons replace nitroglycerine?", because that's really where their strategic use is most applicable.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Mistralok1

Join Date 05/2006

+22

These things have been around for a long time. The US used the "Daisy Cutter" in Vietnam to clear swaths of jungle. The idea was shelved for a time, and resurrected as the MOAB, or 'Mother of All Bombs'. Ever wonder how Saddam got the idea for 'Mother of All Wars'? He was working on one. It doesn't work in the desert, though. Too flat and breezy. The gas can't concentrate properly, so you get a big WHOOMPH!, and little else. Much like a Hollywood explosion, it is all show, with no real damage caused.

This type of weapon requires very specific conditions to work as advertised. As such, it is really not practical as a weapon. This is why the US abandoned this line of research some 20-odd years ago.

Successfully updated karma reason!

these weapons were tested on iraq soldiers in the second gulf war.

A secondary effect of these weapons is thay burn up large ammounts of oxygen and people not caught in the blast zone die of aphyfixiation.(SP)

Infact area of effect that they can kill over is larger then a 20kiloton nuke.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Very interesting Nequa. However, i don't think these will replace nukes. But, it is possible they could be used as some sort of fear weapon. A large explosion is a given, but the aphyfixiation part is where the real threat is. Suffocating in your own home isn't an appealing thought for anyone.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Mistralok
I just read your post then.

You do know the US used them on Iraq Soldiers in the second gulf war?
Infact they have developed "city Killers"
Which produce an overpressure wave sufficent to destroy even earthquake and cyclone reinforced structures.

Successfully updated karma reason!

No fusion bombs will replace them

Successfully updated karma reason!

...

We already have fusion bombs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-bomb

The thermobaric weapons being discussed only sound good for very specific strikes and they'd never even come close to approaching the magnitude of destructive capability of a nuclear weapon. The Russian upgrade of the US MOAB only had a yield of 44 tons. Is it decimating at the point of impact and the locale around? Sure. Is it a lot more useful than a weapon that craps up the environment it hits? Sure. It's still pathetic in terms of power to a fission-fusion bomb.

I'd say the next thing to surpass the nuclear arsenal would be antimatter weaponry and it's a LONG way off, assuming even if it's ever found to be feasible.

Successfully updated karma reason!

well..if the russians develops better conventional weaponry than the US, well good for them. Somebody has to counter balance US as the current sole super power.

Successfully updated karma reason!

....."""""The GBU-43/B is large, powerful and accurately delivered. high explosive. The GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb [MOAB] weapon is a 21,000 lbs total weight GPS-guided munition with fins and inertial gyro for pitch and roll control. It is probable that this munition was initially nick-named the "Mother Of All Bombs" with the retronymic expansion of MOAB following later.

On 11 September 2007 the Russian military announced that it had tested what it called the "Father of All Bombs". Described as the world's most powerful non-nuclear air-delivered munition, the Russian military claimed it was four times more powerful than the American "Mother Of All Bombs." While the Russian bomb was reported to contain 7.8 tons of "thermobaric" explosive, compared to the more than 8 tons of explosives in the American bomb, the Russian bomb was said to use more highly efficient explosive, with a yield equivalent to 44 tons of TNT. The bomb was reported to have a blast radius of 300 meters, double that of the American bomb, while the temperature at the epicenter was also reported to be twice as high.

MOAB is a guided bomb which delivers the 18,700 lb BLU-120/B warhead bomb with KMU-593/B GPS/INS. The MOAB is the largest-ever satellite-guided, air-delivered weapon in history [not the largest ever, but the largest satellite guided]. The 21,600-pound MOAB is an improved replacement for the unguided 15,000-pound BLU-82 Daisy Cutter. It is 30 feet long with a diameter of 40.5 inches. The warhead is a blast-type warhead. It was developed in only nine weeks to be available for the Iraq campaign, but it was not used in combat.

In 1991 Saddam Hussein conquered Kuwait and postured with threats to deliver the "Mother of All Battles". Mother of all Battles [Umm Al-Ma'arik / Um El-Ma'arek] -- the Arabic "mother of" is a figure of speech for "major" or "best". The original "Mother of All Battles" was the Battle of Qadisiya [Battle of al-Qadisiyya] in 637 CE, in which Islamic Arabs defeated the Persians. Saddam Hussein's "Mother of All Battles" turned intot, among other things, the "Mother of All Retreats", the "Mother of All Blowouts", "the mother of all Marine operations", 650-slide “mother of all briefings”, and so forth.

The MOAB weapon is based upon the same principle as the BLU-82 “Daisy Cutter”, except that it is larger and has a guidance system. The weapon is expected to produce a tremendous explosion that would be effective against hard-target entrances, soft-to-medium surface targets, and for anti-personnel purposes. Because of the size of the explosion, it is also effective at LZ clearance and mine and beach obstacle clearance. Injury or death to persons will be primarily caused by blast or fragmentation. It is expected that the weapon will have a substantial psychological effect on those who witness its use. The massive weapon provides a capability to perform psychological operations, attack large area targets, or hold at-risk threats hidden within tunnels or caves"""".......

...just some clarifying info

Successfully updated karma reason!

Weapons as powerful and damaging as nukes are what keep "nuclear" countries from warring against each other.

I can't think of anyone other than a third grader that would actually ask such a thoughtless question as "do you think thermobaric weapons will replace nukes?" Other than the fact that they are both classified as bombs, they have no other similarities.

Successfully updated karma reason!

These things have been around for a long time. The US used the "Daisy Cutter" in Vietnam to clear swaths of jungle. The idea was shelved for a time, and resurrected as the MOAB, or 'Mother of All Bombs'. Ever wonder how Saddam got the idea for 'Mother of All Wars'? He was working on one. It doesn't work in the desert, though. Too flat and breezy. The gas can't concentrate properly, so you get a big WHOOMPH!, and little else. Much like a Hollywood explosion, it is all show, with no real damage caused. This type of weapon requires very specific conditions to work as advertised. As such, it is really not practical as a weapon. This is why the US abandoned this line of research some 20-odd years ago.

Please...The MOAB was just recently developed. The US did not abandon this research. Obviuosly. Or MOAB wouldnt currently exist. See my above post. The bomb was SPECIFICALLY designed for use in the iraq theatre. WHICH LAST TIME I CHECKED...WAS A DESERT. CNN released this report on 4-23-03...

The officials said a single, 21,000-pound MOAB bomb has been moved to an undisclosed forward base.

"I can confirm the MOAB is now in [the] theater," a Pentagon official told CNN. "But I can't comment on whether there are any plans to use it."
The bomb, nicknamed the "mother of all bombs," is officially known as the Massive Ordnance Air Blast.
The MOAB received international attention before the war when the U.S. Air Force tested it at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, in March.
The Air Force quickly released video of the March test, which showed the bomb falling through the sky and bursting into a massive fireball upon impact. A cloud of smoke then rose hundreds of feet into the sky.
At the time, the video was released in hopes of placing additional pressure on the Iraqi military, officials said.
MOAB has been under development since late last year. The bomb carries 18,000 pounds of conventional explosives that have an indefinite shelf life.
It replaces the Vietnam-era "Daisy Cutter," a 15,000-pound bomb with 12,600 pounds of the less-powerful GSX explosives.
As conceived, the MOAB was to be used against large formations of troops and equipment or against hardened above-ground bunkers. The target set has also been expanded to include deeply buried targets.
Military officials told CNN at the time of the test the MOAB was conceived mainly as a weapon employed for "psychological operations."
Military officials hoped the MOAB would create such a huge blast that it would rattle Iraqi troops and pressure them into surrendering or not even fighting.
Now that Iraqi troops have surrendered in large numbers, it was unclear what the possible targets might be. "

Also here is video released by military of MOAB test...

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/139739/moab_bomb_test_video/

Successfully updated karma reason!

Weapons as powerful and damaging as nukes are what keep "nuclear" countries from warring against each other.I can't think of anyone other than a third grader that would actually ask such a thoughtless question as "do you think thermobaric weapons will replace nukes?" Other than the fact that they are both classified as bombs, they have no other similarities.

thankyou.

the MOAB is capable of flatening 150 yds. The Russians claim their 'FOAB' is 4 times more powerful using thermobaric explosives. so that would hypotheticaly be 600 yards flattened. lets double that for no reason-1200yards flattened. that would also be 15.6 ton yeild of thermobaric explosives. Quite a large bomb. Lets look at the largest Nuclear bomb ever detonated(not largest ever built). The russians detonated the largest ever in 1963(around that time). dubbed the Tsar Bomb, (it was designed as a 100 megaton bomb but had to be scaled down for actual testing) it was FIFTY SIX MEGATONS. Its radius of incineration?...ONE HUNDRED AND TEN MILES. "Will Thermobaric weapons replace nuclear weapons?"
Are u F@#$ing kidding me? Thermobaric=1200yrds destroyed. 15.6 ton yeild. nuke=110 MILES destroyed 56 MEGA ton yeild. and thats just the largest nuke ever actually tested. not the largest ever built, designed or other wise conceived...

Successfully updated karma reason!

Thats nothing more than a Fusion-boosted fission weapon. Not pure fusion.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Thermobaric weapons pwn.

the MOAB is capable of flatening 150 yds. The Russians claim their 'FOAB' is 4 times more powerful using thermobaric explosives. so that would hypotheticaly be 600 yards flattened. lets double that for no reason-1200yards flattened. that would also be 15.6 ton yeild of thermobaric explosives. Quite a large bomb. Lets look at the largest Nuclear bomb ever detonated(not largest ever built). The russians detonated the largest ever in 1963(around that time). dubbed the Tsar Bomb, (it was designed as a 100 megaton bomb but had to be scaled down for actual testing) it was FIFTY SIX MEGATONS. Its radius of incineration?...ONE HUNDRED AND TEN MILES. "Will Thermobaric weapons replace nuclear weapons?"
Are u F@#$ing kidding me? Thermobaric=1200yrds destroyed. 15.6 ton yeild. nuke=110 MILES destroyed 56 MEGA ton yeild. and thats just the largest nuke ever actually tested. not the largest ever built, designed or other wise conceived...

Ah, the Ivan. (A.k.a. Tsar Bomba)

Thermobaric weapons will in no way replace nuclear weapons but they could potentially provide a scaled down weapon of mass destruction that would solve the problem of radiation.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Thatd be like goin from a nuclear powered aircraft carrier to an innertube
lol

Successfully updated karma reason!

We do have thermobaric SMAW rounds in the inventory. If you made it a tandem charged warhead, a penetrator followed by the thermobaric warhead (similar to the PG-7VR) you could have a suitable bunker buster as well as an all around urban destruction application.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Ah, the Ivan. (A.k.a. Tsar Bomba)Thermobaric weapons will in no way replace nuclear weapons but they could potentially provide a scaled down weapon of mass destruction that would solve the problem of radiation.

Well, if you fire a nuke, other countries might (99% certainty) retaliate. And faster than you can imagine, our world is dead.

If you fire a non-nuclear weapon with no residual effects what so ever.. Well hey, go ahead!
Thats the danger with those new kinds of weapons. The more "enviromentally friendly" they are, the more they will be used.

For instance, if you wanted to obliderate a nation you are at war with, launching 100 nukes will be bad for the entire planet, so that wont happen, hopefully.
However, launching 1000 thermobaric bombs wont have any effect other than simply destroying the target area. Do you think the military will be able to resist? No they wont. In war everything goes, the most powerful weapons = win.

Thats the problem with nukes, and in a sense the safeguard of nukes. That they cant really be used in a big way..
Yes, usa can brag about its nuclear subs having enough nukes onboard to put the entire planet in a state of nuclear winter for a year. But its not practical, it wont be used unless you want your own country to get fucked up as well.
Nukes are sort of "safe" that way, mostly just for dicking about and showing who got the longest nuke-dick.

Successfully updated karma reason!