Saving the planet, one vacuum bomb at a time
Yesterday I posted about Putin's new bomb, which is four times bigger than any non-nuclear bomb now in existence, and said that I wouldn't be surprised if the "dad of all bombs" turns up at a Caribbean nation near you, along with the Russian subs
But, hey, there's no need to worry, because da bomb is green (italics added): Russia drops 'dad of all bombs'
Environmentally friendly weapon four times bigger than U.S. non-nuclears
And how do we know it's "environmentally friendly"? Because a Russian general says so, of course:
"The tests have shown that the new air-delivered ordnance is comparable to a nuclear weapon in its efficiency and capability," Col.-Gen. Alexander Rukshin, a deputy chief of the Russian military's General Staff, said in televised remarks.Yessiree, we've got the ultimate in eco-friendliness served right here, and in full color:
Unlike a nuclear weapon, the bomb doesn't hurt the environment, he added.
Pictures showed what looked like a flattened multi-storey block of flats surrounded by scorched soil and boulders. "The soil looks like a lunar landscape," the report said.Because there's "environmentally friendly", and then there is really "environmentally friendly".
(h/t Copious Dissent)
UPDATE, Friday 14 September:
Behold, the penetrator.
I think this is a slap at Russian manhood, actually. It's the military equivalent of accusing someone of premature ejaculation.
Share on Facebook
Labels: Russia, Vladimir Putin
posted by Fausta @ 11:46 AM
5 Comments:
Don't we have one (some) of these already with our fuel-air bomb the "MOAB"? Still, the means of delivery is the key thing - I'm not sure it works by missile as well as by airplane...
imho, "environmentally friendly" (whatever that means, exacty) is a benefit. It may mean no radioactive particles whatsoever. Less of certain toxins and residues bombs have typically carried? Fine. The euphemism is deplorably misanthropic because it's getting on the environmentally-correct bandwagon in which HUMANITY is seen as either a harm or an irritation, but not "the measure of all things." This new device could have strategic and tactical benefits. Get me the blueprints, I want to study them!
In the 80s the (American) neutron bomb was designed to destroy living things on a wide scale but not to take out infrastructure, at least not in a devastating way.
Tactical nuclear weapons are supposedly much smaller than the ones targeting cities etc, unless you happen to be under one when it goes off. I suspect that what ever it is the Russians are deploying (if anything and it is not all a bunch of BS) may be a moab or fuel air device as mentioned in an above comment. These can be horrendous devices but they don't destroy the environment. However, if used, the Russians will have to buy an awful lot of carbon credits from Mr. Gore's CCC (Carbon Credit Company) Heh!
It was a fuel-air device dropped by a Tu160, Blackjack.
Ours rolls off the rear gate of a C130.
Good grief!... Does the AP have any conception of just how much environmental friendliness the Kremlin's going to have to commit to make up for disasters like the Aral Sea, the Kola Peninsula, and all those old submarine nuke cores they dumped in the Arctic over the years?
My goodness, does no one in the media nowadays recognize propoganda for what it is?
And it's apples to oranges to compare thermobarics to anything besides other thermobarics. The US has been using Fuel-Air bombs for years now - the famous British astonishment at thinking they saw the US set off a nuke in Kuwait during Gulf One was caused by such a weapon - so it's not like there's nothing in the US arsenal to compare it too. Maybe this writer should attempt such a comparison at some point, especially when the claim he parrots is a comparative one. And as far as being more "environmentally friendly"? Maybe. But it takes more than just blank assertion and some handwaving about "... a new, highly efficient type of explosives" to prove such a claim.
Post a Comment
<< Home