The Father of all bombs

[jimnyc]

I thought the MOAB was the beast.... well, it IS, as it's the largest, but maybe not the most powerful? An article and then the Wiki

---

Russia's 'father of all bombs' is 4 times stronger than the 'mother of all bombs' for a horrifying reason

On April 13, the US military dropped a school bus-size munition nicknamed the "mother of all bombs" on a network of ISIS-held caves and bunkers in northeastern Afghanistan, according to the Pentagon.

Weighing about 21,600 pounds and stretching 30 feet, each MOAB (officially called the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast) can explode with the power of about 11 tons' worth of TNT, making it the largest conventional bomb in the US arsenal.

However, MOABs are not the most powerful non-nuclear explosives in the world.

That title belongs to the Russian-built "father of all bombs," also called "Blackjack" by NATO.

Each FOAB can detonate with the power of 44 tons' worth of TNT, or with four times the MOAB's yield. (This is more than 1,000 times weaker than the first atomic bomb detonations.)

But these gigantic bombs are two entirely different beasts designed to kill enemies in different situations.

MOABs, as Business Insider's Rafi Letzter explained, blow up about six feet above a subterranean target. By not hitting the ground, the bomb avoids wasting energy to form a crater; instead, the energy goes into a powerful shockwave.

That shockwave reflects off the ground, recombines with itself at the edges, and forms a doubly powerful "mach stem," which can penetrate deep into the ground, blast through buried structures (like a bunker), and collapse them.

Rest here - http://www.businessinsider.com/foab-vs-moab-bomb-damage-2017-4


Father of All Bombs

Compared with MOAB

According to General Alexander Rushkin, the Russian deputy chief of staff, the new bomb is smaller than the MOAB but much deadlier because the temperature at the centre of the blast is twice as high.[4][8][9] He says the bomb's capabilities are comparable to nuclear weapons, but unlike nuclear weaponry known for its radioactive fallout, use of the weapon does not damage or pollute the environment beyond the blast radius.[5]

In comparison, the MOAB produces the equivalent of 11 tons of TNT from 8 tons of high explosive. The blast radius of the FOAB is 300 meters, almost double that of the MOAB, and the temperature produced is twice as high

MOAB - 10 Tons - 11 tons TNT - 150 meters blast radius
FOAB - 7.1 tons - 44 tons TNT - 300 meter blast radius

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_All_Bombs

[sear]

Mindful of how particularly out of place my following comment may seem this Easter Sunday morning:

I do not regularly attend church.

But I puzzle at those that wear their religiosity like a badge of pride, superiority, and indisputable justification.

I'm not diminishing the technology.
But on broader reflection, there is an element of sadness that such advancement is used for such clearly homicidal purpose.


"The question is not whether god is on our side, but whether we are on His." President Ronald Reagan

[Drummond]

Mindful of how particularly out of place my following comment may seem this Easter Sunday morning:

I do not regularly attend church.

But I puzzle at those that wear their religiosity like a badge of pride, superiority, and indisputable justification.

I'm not diminishing the technology.
But on broader reflection, there is an element of sadness that such advancement is used for such clearly homicidal purpose.

Are you saying that 'religiously decent' people shouldn't ever approve of the use of weapons ? No wars should ever be fought, for example, because it isn't 'Christian' to ?

Perhaps the Allies were less than Christian in opposing Hitler ? Was the ending of the 'Final Solution', genocide intended (and to an extent carried out) against Jews, something that didn't qualify as 'Christian' ?

No - there are evils in this world, and it is NOT wrong to have the capability to fight them.

In the case of America's deployment of the 'mother of all bombs' against ISIS .. it was an action taken to wipe out a source of evil. ISIS terrorists, in being that, have no inalienable right to life, any more than they'd recognise that to be true of their victims.

I for one have no problem with ISIS's extermination. Effective tools in that effort are welcome, I'd have thought.

[sear]

"Are you saying that 'religiously decent' people shouldn't ever approve of the use of weapons ?" D #3

Full disclosure: I consider myself an agnostic.
An atheist is one that defines himself in terms of what he does NOT believe.
An agnostic simply confesses ignorance.

BUT !!

We agnostics qualify as non-believers.
So your inquiry to me about "religiously decent" people is a question to one that admits a non-religious premise.

Apart from that:
"Are you saying that 'religiously decent' people shouldn't ever approve of the use of weapons ?" D #3

This question is structured too bluntly to yield a useful reply.
You would have to define "religiously decent people".

Perhaps the most obvious complication:
Mennonites for example (Pennsylvania Dutch) often identify as pacifists. What need of a gun would any of them have?

There may be other religions, other "sects" that are more weapon-friendly. "David Koresh's" Branch Davidians come to mind.

"Perhaps the Allies were less than Christian in opposing Hitler ?"

"Perhaps".
"Turn the other cheek", and all that.
If that's not good enough for you Ecclesiastes may help you out.

"Was the ending of the 'Final Solution', genocide intended (and to an extent carried out) against Jews, something that didn't qualify as 'Christian' ?

No -" D

Yes. I'm not aware of much that's Christian about the Nazi Holocaust.

"there are evils in this world, and it is NOT wrong to have the capability to fight them."

Dandy.
That's a secular perspective I've not merely long shared, but acted upon, as a volunteer for U.S. military service in time of War.

But the argument you've presented is religious, theological; not practical or geo-political.

In this case the two answers are extremely different.

"In the case of America's deployment of the 'mother of all bombs' against ISIS .. it was an action taken to wipe out a source of evil. ISIS terrorists" D

"it was an action taken to wipe out a source of evil" as YOU define it.

But know it or not, believe it or not, like it or not, admit it or not; I've never seen a one-sided coin.

There are many reasons so many in the Middle East refer to the U.S. as "the Great Satan".
And if the roles were reversed, I wouldn't be too sure YOU or those like you (including me) wouldn't be considering or applying tactics much like those applied against U.S.

"I for one have no problem with ISIS's extermination." D

That's conveniently so tidy, you can probably get a good night's sleep with a perspective like that.
The real world is a little more complicated.

What should be done with the boy who at age 8, was forced to witness the murder of his father, and then forced to murder his own mother, or be tortured to death with his 3 siblings?
A boy further forced to perform unspeakable acts of terrorist barbarity, and then at age 12 manages to escape?

Are you aware Muslim extremists are using ostensibly Muslim schools called Madrassas as terrorist brain-washing centers?
The two main things taught at the worst of these is:
- Memorize the Holy Qur'an, and
- how to be an Islamist terrorist.

Entire generations are being raised this way.

And your solution is: KILL THE CHILDREN ?

I don't like ISIL any more than you. But I'm not so naïve as to believe it's as militarily simple, or as ideologically pure as your "ISIS's extermination" formulation might have us believe.

[aboutime]

sear. Based on your post below about you being agnostic, and saying you don't believe.

Tell us. WHAT exactly are you talking about? WHAT is it, you do not believe in?

Oddly enough. Agnostics always claim they do not believe, which pleads the question...WHAT is it, you do not believe in? And, if you DO NOT BELIEVE IN SOMETHING...doesn't that mean YOU admit there IS SOMETHING TO NOT BELIEVE IN???

[sear]

"sear. Based on your post below about you being agnostic, and saying you don't believe." at #5

agnostic (àg-nòs´tîk) noun
One who believes that there can be no proof of the existence of God but does not deny the possibility that God exists.

adjective
1. Relating to or being an agnostic.
2. Noncommittal: "I favored European unity, but I was agnostic about the form it should take" (Henry A. Kissinger).

[a-1 + Gnostic.]
- agnos´tically adverb

Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven, for example, but rather holds that one cannot know for certain if they exist or not. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnosis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things"; hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as "Gnostics" a group of his fellow intellectuals- "ists," as he called them- who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a "man without a rag of a label to cover himself with," Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870. *
"god" in the sense AHD applies it here alludes to the supernatural.
I'm parsimonious about skipping natural explanations, and substituting millennia old myths from pre-literate cultures.

The bizarre component of this is the notion that one must pick a side. Cocky Pop

There is no burden of disproof.
The religionists say god created the Heaven and the Earth. Dandy.
There's no burden on me to either prove or disprove.
They can jazz on about a talking serpent or a pregnant virgin all they like. I'd rather watch the Stanley Cup playoffs.

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), U.S. president. Letter, 10 Aug. 1787


http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9871&stc=1

"And, if you DO NOT BELIEVE IN SOMETHING...doesn't that mean YOU admit there IS SOMETHING TO NOT BELIEVE IN???"


I believe there are claims that have persisted for millennia that to this day remain unsupported by a single shred of tangible evidence.

faith (fâth) noun
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. *
I'm with Jefferson on it.

My rational mind is god given (however defined, natural, or supernatural).
If there is no supernatural deity, than disbelieving in one is penalty free.
If there is, and I use my god-given mind rationally, and god chooses to punish me for that, then why would I worship any deity that follows the Chris Hitchens formula: - Created sick, and commanded to be well. -

Pascal's Wager has it precisely backward.

* Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

[aboutime]

"sear. Based on your post below about you being agnostic, and saying you don't believe." at #5

"god" in the sense AHD applies it here alludes to the supernatural.
I'm parsimonious about skipping natural explanations, and substituting millennia old myths from pre-literate cultures.

The bizarre component of this is the notion that one must pick a side. Cocky Pop

There is no burden of disproof.
The religionists say god created the Heaven and the Earth. Dandy.
There's no burden on me to either prove or disprove.
They can jazz on about a talking serpent or a pregnant virgin all they like. I'd rather watch the Stanley Cup playoffs.

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), U.S. president. Letter, 10 Aug. 1787


http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9871&stc=1

"And, if you DO NOT BELIEVE IN SOMETHING...doesn't that mean YOU admit there IS SOMETHING TO NOT BELIEVE IN???"


I believe there are claims that have persisted for millennia that to this day remain unsupported by a single shred of tangible evidence.

I'm with Jefferson on it.

My rational mind is god given (however defined, natural, or supernatural).
If there is no supernatural deity, than disbelieving in one is penalty free.
If there is, and I use my god-given mind rationally, and god chooses to punish me for that, then why would I worship any deity that follows the Chris Hitchens formula: - Created sick, and commanded to be well. -

Pascal's Wager has it precisely backward.

* Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for proving my point, and skipping any actual, honest answer.
Look at how you found a need to DEFEND everything. If there was nothing to DEFEND from...you would have no reason to DEFEND anything.

Like other Agnostics. You must prove to yourself, how you must DEFEND against the semantics, and rhetoric of the word "GOD".
You claim you are offended, and even insulted by the word, and anything anyone who does admit the Belief in God, makes you uncomfortable, and even angry.
If there is NO GOD. Why must you feel a need to DEFEND against something you always say..DOES NOT EXIST?
You and others confuse, and twist the context with the belief of a GOD, with actual FAITH. The belief in something UNSEEN.
So..keep barking up that tree, and keep trying to prove you must DEFEND against something YOU CLAIM does not exist.

YOU WILL LOSE, EVERY TIME.