Posted on 09/11/2007 5:59:17 PM PDT by Stoat
Come one now, Stoat, you know there's rules around here..........
Is this her?
Easier to hit ~ on my keyboard it’s top row, all the way to the left. The other character, -, is third from the right, top row.
A corrupt Marxist / Socialist / Globalist as President and an incoherent, apparently brain-damaged former General as Sec Def?
I'm not sure how this would worry them....please help me out.
BOAB? (Babushka Of All Bombs)
Huh? Hiroshima was a nuke. Nuclear explosions don't need oxidizers, are not limited by the O2 in the air and combustibles on the ground, etc. Their secondary effects (fire, burning, etc.) might be, but the original explosion doesn't need anything but room to grow.
The release of energy by a nuke occurs entirely within the warhead -- not counting comparitively minor secondary effects. What we think of as the explosion is actually the superhot small ball of energy reaching equalibrium with its environment, which requires a LOT of expansion.
In contrast, explosives that burn (i.e., don't have their own oxidizer) are actual ongoing reactions -- think SUPER fast burning, so available O2 can become a limiting factor. FAEs address that problem by mixing their "fuel" (explosive) with the air before detonation, ensuring plenty of O2. Another poster explained the nature of the explosive used consume less O2, but I don't know that much about that.
In any case, NO conventional non-nuke weapon is significant compared to any (non-tactical) nuke...
Well, that’s disappointing. I thought I had found someone else who thinks the new dash looks dorky. A few months back they changed the software so that it automatically merges a double hyphen into a looooong dash, and it’s been bugging me ever since.
(Yeah, yeah, I know I need to get a life ;)
Nukes wouldn't work as well unless you used excessively powerful devices.
BTW, anyone hear the urban legend that some of the scientists who set off the first nuke thought it would start a chain reaction in the O2 in the atmosphere and basically glass the planet? Wonder if it’s true. If it is, can you believe they set it off anyway?
Ah, now I get your point. Gotcha.
guess that was a “hey ya’ll! watch this!” moment
As long as Putin uses it to erase muzzie terrorists then I have no problem with it.
I think it was little more than the very stupid idea of looking good on the May Day parade ~ the "newsies" ate it up anyway.
Here they've developed something just a bit bigger than a MOAB for some reason ~ sucking oxygen out of a qanat system (and thereby destroying its bio or chemical contents) could be a very good reason, which means the real question is why did they make their qanat buster bigger.
No doubt the Russians have found some ancient "qanat" somewhere in their territory and have computed what they need to do the job.
It was Enrico Fermi, while waiting in the bunker for the Trinity test, jokingly asked if anyone wanted to take bets on "whether or not the bomb would ignite the atmosphere, and if so, whether it would merely destroy New Mexico or destroy the world."
Robert Oppenheimer also expressed some concern to the military prior to the original detonation that there was a slim probablility that his calculations might contain a significant enough error that an atomic blast would ignite the hydrogen in the atmosphere but he was pretty sure that that would not happen. This is also mentioned in his trial transcripts.
What he was speaking of was the possibility that the fission reaction would initiate a fusion reaction in Nitrogen present in the air. If this reaction were self-sustaining, it could 'ignite' the atmosphere.
I know that is what Wikipedia said, I find this hard to believe, even for the 39 nanoseconds of fusion reported. Maybe some of the physic brains around here can elaborate.
Is there a video of this somewhere?
So because things are complex and the Iranians weren't reduced to puppets, the Russians have to give the Iranians weapons to send to Iraq to kill Americans? Not buying it.
They know what's going on in Iran. It is the leading terrorist organization in the world and has been since Jimmy Carter handed it to the Islamists. I don't care how "complex" things are. Iran supports terrorists and the killing of Americans by terrorists. Iran supports the defeat of American in Iraq. By arming Iran, the Russians also support those goals. That's not complicated.
The great nuance and complexity of a situation is a BS excuse used by liberals, the State Dept. and, apparently, Russians when they want to do something they know is wrong or will get them in trouble if they do it directly.
Far from being "complex", Russian foreign policy in Iran is straightforward. It has always liked to have an "insane-little-brother" countries. It uses the insane-little-brothers to accomplish geopolitical goals that Russia cannot accomplish directly. Then periodically, it will pretend to restrain the insane-little-brother to extract concessions from the current target of the insanity.
Currently, Russia is using the Iranians to defeat the US in Iraq.
So Russia is happy to deal with Islamic terrorists as long as they play the role of insane-little-brother. The Iranian regime obviously has no problem with the insane part.
I surrender!!!!! We agree!!!
Today it is pretty much a Chinese client-state, but the Russians are making a major effort to get as much influence as they can in the place.
That's not necessarily bad.
As far as Iranians using Russian weapons to kill our guys, "W" has it in his power to remove Iran from the face of the Earth and put a stop to that. I would, in fact, encourage him to do so on the slightest pretext.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.