When we find Saddam...

[5stringJeff]

Here's the weapon I hope we use.

Final Test For 'Mother Of All Bombs'
Los Angeles Times
November 19, 2003
By Reuters

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military plans this week to conduct its final development test on the most powerful nonnuclear bomb in its arsenal, the Air Force said Tuesday. The weapon is so big it is dubbed the "mother of all bombs."

The Air Force plans to detonate a 21,700-pound, satellite-guided GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb, or MOAB, Thursday at Eglin Air Force Base in the Florida panhandle, said Jake Swinson, a spokesman for the Air Armament Center there.

The huge conventional bomb will be dropped from an MC-130 Combat Talon cargo plane onto a test range at the base, Swinson said, noting that the massive bomb will then become available for use as U.S. military commanders deem appropriate.

In its only previous live test, the MOAB was detonated at the same base on March 11, the week before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. There were two previous inert tests of the bomb, Swinson said.

The MOAB spreads a flammable mist over the target, then ignites it, producing a highly destructive blast.

 

[dijetlo]

When you absolutely positively want everybody dead...MOAB, accept no substitutes.

 

[DKSuddeth]

so, we've devised a new way to use napalm.

 

[jimnyc]

That's one bad ass bomb. Anyone know of any footage of prior test? I'd love to see some clips of that! I wish I could take out the navigational system and steer it into my old boss's house!

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I wish I could take out the navigational system and steer it into my old boss's house!

Or my ex-fiancee!

 

[SLClemens]

It spreads a gas mist over a huge area and then ignites it, sucking the oxygen out of every living creature in a huge radius. If this isn't a chemical weapon and WMD, what is?

 

[5stringJeff]

Chemical weapons actually spread chemicals around a particular area. The explosive on a chemical weapon is not designed to create a huge explosion, or to expend the chemical, but to spread the chemical over the desired area.
This weapon, however, is designed to be one big explosion, using conventional explosives (i.e. not nuclear). It is not a chemical weapon.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SLClemens
If this isn't a chemical weapon and WMD, what is?

Nobody said it wasn't. We don't plan on using them on neighboring countries though! Shoot, even if the thing didn't have a payload of any sorts it would cause mass destruction, the damn thing is nearly 22,000lbs!

 

[DKSuddeth]

devils advocate here, but the treaties that the US has signed didn't have a 'non-neighboring country' clause in them.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
devils advocate here, but the treaties that the US has signed didn't have a 'non-neighboring country' clause in them.

What are you talking about, what treaties?

 

[DKSuddeth]

for starters, the Chemical Weapons Convention, of which the US is a states signer.

http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_frameset.html

 

[jimnyc]

What's the point though? I'm just confused as to what you are getting at. Are you saying this bomb is against treaties we have signed?

 

[DKSuddeth]

it could be construed as one, yes.

Its not a regular detonation bomb, it uses a chemical weapon in that is distributes a flammable mist that is then ignited. Is it a chemical that can cause damage? How is the damage increased because of this mist? Seems to be questions with no answers as of yet.

 

[jimnyc]

Chemical weapons are chemicals such as nerve gas (sarin or Agent VX), phosgene, carbonyl cyanide, mustard gas, chlorine, and other poisons or caustic chemicals used to deliberately cause injuries.
http://members.tripod.com/~VFRICKEY/cbrlinks.html

(I know, it's "tripod" site, but it's accurate.)

It was used in Afghanistan, don't you think someone in the entire world that also signed the treaties would be complaining if it was a "chemical weapon"? And why is it listed as a conventional weapon everywhere? I've yet to see it listed as a chemical weapon by anyone.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
it could be construed as one, yes.

Its not a regular detonation bomb, it uses a chemical weapon in that is distributes a flammable mist that is then ignited. Is it a chemical that can cause damage? How is the damage increased because of this mist? Seems to be questions with no answers as of yet.

DK,

Read my post earlier in the thread, this is NOT a chemical weapon.

 

[SLClemens]

I guess that by most definitions a chemical weapon is one that relies upon a chemical agent to attack the body, so fuel-air explosives would only be chemical weapons by this definition if they failed to explode. But they do destroy vegetation over large areas that conventional ordinance would not; does this make them biological weapons? What are their effects outside the immediate kill-zone? Do they attack the human body by altering the composition of the air? That would make them chemical weapons.

They're not something original bans on the use of chemical weapons took into consideration, obviously. Russia used them against Chechnyan guerrillas in 1997, and world reaction was mixed. Their advantage from a US point of view is that they offer much the same result as "mini-nukes" without invoking the legacy of nuclear weapons. They're still an ambiguous entity in terms of weapons treaties. My guess is that they'll become a formal WMD when a third-world nation (like Syria) develops them to a point where they can prove a potentially devastating threat to a US ally (like Israel).

I wonder how we'd feel if North Korea agreed to complete nuclear weapons program abandonment, inspections and everything, but developed ICBMs with very large fuel-air explosives?

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by SLClemens
I guess that by most definitions a chemical weapon is one that relies upon a chemical agent to attack the body, so fuel-air explosives would only be chemical weapons by this definition if they failed to explode. But they do destroy vegetation over large areas that conventional ordinance would not; does this make them biological weapons? What are their effects outside the immediate kill-zone? Do they attack the human body by altering the composition of the air? That would make them chemical weapons.

Their advantage from a US point of view is that they offer much the same result as "mini-nukes" without invoking the legacy of nuclear weapons. They're still an ambiguous entity in terms of weapons treaties. My guess is that they'll become a formal WMD when a third-world nation (like Syria) develops them to a point where they can prove a potentially devastating threat to a US ally (like Israel).

See this link (linked at the site jim linked to earlier). Ammonium nitrate and powdered aluminum are the "mist" that is sprayed, then detonated. This is the same chemical used in fertilizers. So if a MOAB didn't explode, I'm sure the vegetation would be doing all right! As far as animals, I'm sure that initially, a high concentration of ammonium nitrate would be harmful, but after the stuff is absorbed into the soil (i.e. after a good rain) it would be just fine.
And the yield on a MOAB is far less than nukes. If I remember from jim's previous link, a MOAB is about 10-15 times smaller a detonation than Litte Boy/Fat Man were.

Sorry, I still don't see the argument for including MOABs as WMDs.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
See this link (linked at the site jim linked to earlier). Ammonium nitrate and powdered aluminum are the "mist" that is sprayed, then detonated. This is the same chemical used in fertilizers. So if a MOAB didn't explode, I'm sure the vegetation would be doing all right! As far as animals, I'm sure that initially, a high concentration of ammonium nitrate would be harmful, but after the stuff is absorbed into the soil (i.e. after a good rain) it would be just fine.
And the yield on a MOAB is far less than nukes. If I remember from jim's previous link, a MOAB is about 10-15 times smaller a detonation than Litte Boy/Fat Man were.

Sorry, I still don't see the argument for including MOABs as WMDs.

They use powdered aluminum in fertilizers? News to me. I think the argument with regard to vegetation is that MOABs destroy the oxide and nitrate concentrations in topsoil upon explosion, killing all things growing.

If a MOAB is 10-15 times smaller than Little Boy and Fat Man that is still a huge bomb. That would make it about 1 megaton. I've read that Pakistan's nuclear weapons may only be 3-5 megatons; are they still WMDs? What if you fired off 10-15 MOABs in one area; would that make a WMD? I think these things are quite highly subjective. If one is ever used against Americans, however, I'm sure we'll all quickly call it a WMD!

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by SLClemens
They use powdered aluminum in fertilizers? News to me. I think the argument with regard to vegetation is that MOABs destroy the oxide and nitrate concentrations in topsoil upon explosion, killing all things growing.

Sorry, I was referring to ammounium nitrate. I do believe, however, that undetonated powdered aluminum would also absorb into the soil.
I think we agree that, when a MOAB explodes, everything in the blast area is going to die!

If a MOAB is 10-15 times smaller than Little Boy and Fat Man that is still a huge bomb. That would make it about 1 megaton. I've read that Pakistan's nuclear weapons may only be 3-5 megatons; are they still WMDs? What if you fired off 10-15 MOABs in one area; would that make a WMD? I think these things are quite highly subjective. If one is ever used against Americans, however, I'm sure we'll all quickly call it a WMD!

I misspoke. The link states that the MOAB is the equivalent of 12 tons of TNT. The smallest nukes we have (suitcase nukes) are eight times larger - almost 100 tons. In comparison, Fat Man and Little Boy were in the 15-20 kiloton range, which is quite small compared to the warheads on ICBMs.
No one argues that nukes are WMDs, because they kill using blast (i.e. the kiloton/megaton rating), intense heat, and radiation. However, the TNT equivalent of a MOAB is smaller than the smallest nuke, by almost a power of ten, without the heat/radiation effects of a nuke.

 

[ajwps]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Air Force Tuesday tested the biggest conventional bomb in the military's arsenal, dropping the new 21,000-pound device on a test site at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, U.S. officials said.

The MOAB does not release disease, nuclear waste, dirty bombs, toxins, poisons or any other of the definitions of weapons of mass destruction.

Question: If the Islamic nations had this weapon and delivery system would the Mullahs hesitate for one second on using it against the infidels?

Watch the bomb video and listen.

http://www.twin-towers.net/moab_bomb.htm