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.

....."""""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

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.

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/

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...

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

Thermobaric weapons pwn.

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.

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

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.

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.

As a strategic weapon? Never. As a tactical weapon? Depends on the target.

Every weapon system needs to have an intended application to be practical. Thermobarics and FAE's are very good at detonating minefields and clearing out trenches. Beyond that they're not much better than conventional munitions. The underground bunker scenario looks attractive but you need the weapon to penetrate the bunker in order to disperse the explosive. That's really what MOAB was intended for.

The FOAB test may sound impressive, but when was the last time we needed to level a city block? It's not something the public generally approves of in anything less than a total war scenario. Even in 1943-45 it was somewhat controversial.

Assuming that is the intent, thermonuclear weapons are the last word. If those are undesirable incendiaries can do the job just as well in most cases (look at Tokyo and Dresden).

the simple answer to your question is no

there is however something you should be worried about: antimatter weapons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter_weapon

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/10/04/MNGM393GPK1.DTL

that zsar bomb someone posted about? a single kilogram of antimatter has the same explosive force
antimatter is real, not just a made up plot device, and it is coming... i would give it only 50-100 years before we are able to effectively harness it... then we are all in for some fun times

a single milligram af anti matter is enough to power an average car for a thousand years...

Maybe, but there are some huge barriers standing in the way. First of all, there are some serious technical issues that must be overcome if antimatter is to be used for anything. The largest of these is probably storage. If antimatter comes in contact with normal matter, it pretty much is annihilated instantly. Right now, the only way we have to store antimatter is to suspend charged antiparticles in a really good vacuum. Unfortunately, all of the antiparticles must be of the same charge, which means that they are all pushing against one another, and therefore you can only store a small amount in any given place. There are also technical issues related to producing antimatter in the scale necessary for weapons use. I don't really enough to comment on it, so I'll skip it for now. There's also a fairly large safety issue. With nuclear weapons, a fairly complex set of reactions has to take place to spark off the initial chain reaction. With antimatter, however, an accidental explosion would occur if containment slipped for even a small fraction of a second.

In addition to these, there are all sorts of political and practical considerations. I don't really want to go too deeply into this, but a fair amount of it could be summed up as "why bother?". Any nation capable of researching these devices already has the ability to build enough nuclear weapons to wipe out any possible enemy, and antimatter weapons aren't really going to offer much benefit over nuclear weapons.

With that said, 100 years is a long, long time when it comes to technological development. Antimatter has plenty of other potential uses, and it may be that once these issues are solved in another field, then antimatter will look more attractive as a weapon. Until then, though, there just aren't enough benefits to these weapons to see the sort of research that made nuclear weapons so common and powerful.

Antimatter really is a made up plot device in the way of its possible uses as a weapon. Fermi Lab which has the largest particle collider currently (soon LHC) has maybe made a few micrograms of antimatter. Antimatter is extremely difficult to produce. Also the fact that once you have created antimatter the only current way to store it is to keep it in motion in a circular particle accelerator and you only can do that for so long (a few days at most I think). Antimatter is purely for scientific purposes and it will be for a long time. Military technology is leaning towards artificial intelligence and precise munitions. Why do you think a ICBM carries multiple smaller Nuclear Warheads (even for the most devastating weapons), it always more effective to be precise then to just blanket an area.