Skip to comments.
America tests 'the most dangerous nuclear bomb ever produced': F-15 drops $1 trillion super-nuke
Daily Mail ^
| 08/29/2017
Posted on 08/29/2017 7:44:37 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
America tests 'the most dangerous nuclear bomb ever produced': F-15 drops $1trillion super-nuke that has an adjustable yield and is more accurate than ever
- An F-15E from Nellis Air Force Base dropped an inert version of the B61-12 over Nevada desert earlier this month after its first test in March
- B61-12 gravity bombs, without a nuclear warhead, were dropped from F-15E fighter jets at Tonopah Test Range in Nevada on August 8
- The mock bomb landed in a dry lake bed at the Tonopah Test Range
- Scientists will spend months analyzing the data gathered from the test
- B61-12 consolidates and replaces older versions in the nation's nuclear arsenal
The US National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has revealed that it has conducted a second series of test flights involving an upgraded version of a nuclear bomb that has been part of the U.S. arsenal for decades.
An F-15E from Nellis Air Force Base dropped an inert version of the weapon over the Nevada desert earlier this month as well as in March to test its non-nuclear functions as well as the plane's ability to carry the bomb.
Work on the B61-12 has been ongoing for years, and government officials say latest tests using mock versions of the bomb will be vital to the refurbishing effort.
The bomb is described as the most dangerous nuclear device ever produced because its yeild can be adjusted between the equivalent of 50,000 tons and 300 tons of TNT. It is also more accurate than ever.
With a mere puff of dust, the mock bomb landed in a dry lake bed at the Tonopah Test Range.
Scroll down for video
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: adjustable; b6112; f15; f16; flexible; nuclearbomb; nukes; thermonuclear
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-74 next last
To: SeekAndFind
41
posted on
08/29/2017 9:46:59 PM PDT
by
Oztrich Boy
(Winter is coming)
To: SeekAndFind
It is inert. Isn’t that like dropping a rock? What’s to study?
42
posted on
08/29/2017 10:00:46 PM PDT
by
Sequoyah101
(It feels like we have exchanged our dreams for survival. We just have a few days that don't suck.)
To: SeekAndFind
If we are in a nuclear war and some cuck general dials this atomic bomb down to 300 tons of TNT and uses it then he should be shot in the face. What a waste of a expensive weapon.
If you are going to use a nuclear bomb then use a nuclear bomb and send your enemies to kingdom come.
43
posted on
08/29/2017 10:09:39 PM PDT
by
WMarshal
(President Trump, a president keeping his promises to the American people. It feels like winning.)
To: doorgunner69
Why wouldn’t you always dial it to 11?
44
posted on
08/29/2017 10:22:07 PM PDT
by
IDFbunny
(Fat shaming works.)
To: Sequoyah101
Whats to study? At a guess: accuracy of the weapon ballistics dialed into the bombing/targeting software of the carrying aircraft. Penetraion tests as well, if that variant of bomb.
To: basalt
Not me. A 0.3 KT nuke is enough to accurately destroy military outposts, political headquarters and ships. I don’t want a holocaust but an utter elimination of war fighting capabilities with minimal US casualties.
To: Sequoyah101
It has the exact duplicate of a live weapon except for the warhead, where an inert object with the same mass and balance is inserted instead.
They are studying the weapon’s ballistic characteristics so that, God forbid, if they have to use one, it will hit the target the pilot aims at.
47
posted on
08/29/2017 11:24:20 PM PDT
by
drop 50 and fire for effect
("Work relentlessly, accomplish much, remain in the background, and be more than you seem.)
To: IDFbunny
Read post 13.
Take a Nork facility, for example. One of their nuclear weapons research facilities has a concentration camp of political prisoners next to it.
You want to use something extremely accurate so as to hit the target, but not hit human shields, if it can be avoided.
In a war one also has to think of the aftermath. You don’t want to replace one failed state with another. You want to eliminate the problem regime with minimal damage to infrastructure so that rule of law can be established as swiftly as possible. Leaving countries in chaos, damaged for a generation or two, continuously producing streams of refugees, only spawns more troublemakers looking for revenge- or invites third parties in to cause more problems- not to mention an unproductive country is a waste for everyone.
48
posted on
08/29/2017 11:26:17 PM PDT
by
piasa
To: Jeff Chandler
If an F15 can carry one, that means all our planes are potentially nuclear delivery platforms.
49
posted on
08/29/2017 11:37:05 PM PDT
by
SauronOfMordor
(Socialists want YOUR wealth redistributed, never THEIRS!)
To: gaijin
Not much bang for a trillion bucks.
50
posted on
08/29/2017 11:58:19 PM PDT
by
mad_as_he$$
(Not my circus. Not my monkeys.)
To: WMarshal
OK, now that you’ve establised how tough you are, try engaging your brain. Suppose we want to knock out a NK missile site 40 miles from Seoul. Still want to use the biggest nuke you can find, or the smallest one that will do the job?
51
posted on
08/30/2017 1:02:09 AM PDT
by
Hugin
(Conservatism wiiohout Nationalism is a fraud.)
To: SeekAndFind
52
posted on
08/30/2017 1:44:56 AM PDT
by
momincombatboots
(White Stetsons up.. let's save our country!)
To: doorgunner69
Fat Boy in North Korea is about to get a live demonstration
53
posted on
08/30/2017 3:03:40 AM PDT
by
njslim
To: SeekAndFind
Deakins: $1 trillion super-nuke that has an adjustable yield
Hale: Oh, crowd-pleasers!
54
posted on
08/30/2017 3:07:16 AM PDT
by
NonValueAdded
(#DeplorableMe #BitterClinger #HillNO! #cishet #MyPresident #MAGA #Winning #covfefe)
To: doorgunner69
“OK, why does adjustable yield make it so dangerous?”
I had the same question. I’ll take a wild swing at an answer. From the author’s perspective nukes are too dangerous to use, period. If, however, you could adjust the nuke down to just being a really small nuke a loose cannon like Trump would be tempted to use nukes to take out, say, the thousands of cannons that North Korea has on the DMZ threatening the South. And, once you use nukes successfully, it will be the go-to weapon of choice for wild, unpredictable Republicans to wipe out all that they see as evil in the world. (uhm.../s)
The hyperbole in the article is a result of the author’s liberal world view.
To: SeekAndFind
Verified: The B-61 adjustable-yield nuclear bomb has been around since 1963. A trillion-dollars? Well, if they’re using 2017 dollars, I can believe that over the last fifty years, we’ve spent $20 billion a year on our nuclear program.
56
posted on
08/30/2017 3:39:25 AM PDT
by
dangus
To: gaijin
That makes no sense at all.
To: CJ Wolf
“delivered by an f16, we can put these on anything.”
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-4.htm
The Marine Corps A-4 Skyhawk is a lightweight, single engine attack aircraft. The mission of an A-4 attack squadron is to attack and to destroy surface targets in support of the landing force commander, escort helicopters, and conduct other operations as directed. Developed in the early 1950s, the A-4 Skyhawk was originally designated the A-4D as a lightweight, daylight only nuclear capable strike aircraft for use in large numbers from aircraft carriers.
Typical dry weight: 10,465 pounds
Wingspan: 26 ft 6 in
Length (excluding IFR Probe): 40 ft 3-1/4 in
58
posted on
08/30/2017 3:56:18 AM PDT
by
BwanaNdege
("The church ... is not the master or the servant of the state, but the conscience" - Luther)
To: SeekAndFind
I’m curious about the $1T price tag. I don’t believe it for one moment, but I am curious. How did they invent that number???
59
posted on
08/30/2017 4:22:59 AM PDT
by
Pollster1
("Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed")
To: kaehurowing
So do I. The hajj is supposed to be happening right now. It would take-out a lot of terrorists, or potential terrorists.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-74 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson