Just my place where I can put what I want, and read what people think about what I said.
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 
Comments (Page 1)
on May 07, 2008
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
on May 07, 2008
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.

on May 07, 2008
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
on May 07, 2008
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.
on May 07, 2008
Thanks, buddy, Oppenheimer just rolled over in his grave again.

"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds..."
on May 07, 2008
"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.
on May 07, 2008
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.
on May 07, 2008
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.
on May 07, 2008
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.
on May 08, 2008
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.


on May 08, 2008
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.
on May 08, 2008
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.
on May 08, 2008
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.
on May 10, 2008
No fusion bombs will replace them
on May 10, 2008
...

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.