Now this is my new favorite bomb!

Kymberley

I perfected 'BITCHYNESS'
Joined
Apr 15, 2000
Posts
1,866
Talk about a dropping a bomb on someone!

http://www.dallasnews.com/attack_on_america/response/stories/STORY.ea051f9288.b0.af.0.a4.ad2c1.html


Gigantic bomb being put to use
'Daisy Cutter' renowned for blast force that cleared jungles in Vietnam

11/07/2001

By RICHARD WHITTLE / The Dallas Morning News

WASHINGTON – The U.S. military has begun using one of its most powerful bombs against Taliban forces in Afghanistan – a 15,000-pound behemoth so big that it can't be dropped. It has to be shoved out the rear of a cargo plane.

"There were two of these weapons used ... within the last week," said Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "They make a heck of a bang when they go off, and the intent is to kill people."

Known as the "Daisy Cutter" because it was first used during the Vietnam War to clear the jungle so helicopters could land, the BLU-82 is also called "Big Blue."

The weapon consists of a septic tank-size container made of 1/4-inch steel that holds 12,600 pounds of aluminum powder in a blasting slurry. A 38-inch probe extending from the nose of the bomb hits the ground first, detonating the weapon above ground level.

The bomb is so bulky that it can't be hung from a warplane's wings. Instead it is loaded onto a pallet and put on a MC-130 Combat Talon special operations transport, then pushed out the back when the plane flies over the target.

"The designers optimized this bomb to clear vegetation while creating little or no crater, and it cleared landing zones about 260 feet in diameter – just right for helicopter operations," notes an article on the U.S. Air Force Museum's website (www.wpafb.af.mil/museum).

But the Daisy Cutter is also deadly. The explosion of its aluminum powder slurry creates a blast wave of 1,000 pounds per square inch that can kill within 200 feet of the impact point – roughly three acres. Those within 500 feet can suffer ruptured lungs or broken eardrums.

Pentagon officials provided no details on where the Daisy Cutters were used in Afghanistan, but Gen. Pace said the weapon "would be extremely useful against troops that are in light defensive positions."

U.S. planes have been attacking Taliban front lines near Mazar-e Sharif and Kabul in recent days.

Contrary to some published reports, the BLU-82 is not a "fuel air explosive," a type of weapon that disperses an aerosol cloud of fuel and ignites a blast that can cause overpressure of 4,000 pounds per square inch. Fuel air munitions are made in sizes from 500 to 2,000 pounds.

"A fuel air munition basically puts out an aerosol fuel that then is ignited, burning the oxygen in the atmosphere, whereas a BLU-82 is basically just a big barrel of blasting slurry," explained John Pike, director of the defense policy group GlobalSecurity.org.

"Since both of them are blast munitions, they have similar effects and are used against similar types of targets," Mr. Pike added. "But the way in which the explosion is generated is quite different. They are frequently confused but totally unrelated."

The Daisy Cutter is far more reliable, he said, because a fuel air explosive's aerosol can be dispersed by wind, diminishing the effect of the blast.

The BLU-82 was first used in Vietnam during 1970, but 11 of the bombs were dropped on Iraqi troops during the 1991 Gulf War. The fury of the blast, and the fact that troops in trenches are not safe from it, can have a powerfully demoralizing effect.

"The blast overpressure from any bomb is going to kill people if it's close enough," Mr. Pike said. "But the BLU-82 has about 10 times as much explosive power in it as a 2,000-pound bomb.

"It'll put the fear of the Lord into anybody it doesn't kill."
 
such tasty lips you have there April-Wine

mind if I have just a small nibble?
 
woooooooooohoooooooooo she wants a nibble.........not so small i hope;)
 
FWIW...

The weapon consists of a septic tank-size container made of 1/4-inch steel that holds 12,600 pounds of aluminum powder in a blasting slurry. A 38-inch probe extending from the nose of the bomb hits the ground first, detonating the weapon above ground level.

Properly speaking, the fuse extender is what is known as a "daisy cutter" and it can be used on any sized bomb. It was often used on 750#, 1000# and 2000# bombs in Vietnam. It is much like an "extension cord" for the actual contact fuse fitted on the end of it. (The "Daisy Cutter" fuse extender is basically just a tube filled with explosives to transmit the detonation of the fuse to the bomb.)

The bomb itself can be fitted with a standard contact fuse or delayed action fuse so it creates a crater if needed. Among the troops, it's known as "Fat Albert," "The Instant Helipad," or "Helipad in a Can."
 
I can't help feeling that a bomb of this magnitude...

which is reported as creating the largest non-nuclear explosion in the American arsenal. Is somehow obscene.

I mean this is just one step before nuclear.

What happens if it doesn't create the desired affect?

:(
 
Re: I can't help feeling that a bomb of this magnitude...

p_p_man said:
which is reported as creating the largest non-nuclear explosion in the American arsenal. Is somehow obscene.

I mean this is just one step before nuclear.

What happens if it doesn't create the desired affect?

:(

We bring out the neutron bomb we never developed......hehehe




:eek:
 
Re: Re: I can't help feeling that a bomb of this magnitude...

registered "^^" said:


We bring out the neutron bomb we never developed......hehehe
:eek:


I'd forgotten about old neutie!

Made great headlines in its day...

:D
 
Speaking of nuclear...

...it's easy for most people to think of nuclear weapons as the several thousand perched atop ICBMs but by far the largest inventory of nuclear weapons are stocked in the tactical, rather than strategic, arsenal. (Total used to be 12,000 or more...don't know what it is today)

The Tomahawk which has been used so successfully was originally designed to carry a smaller, lighter, much more powerful nuclear warhead (much longer range due to the light weight) and intended to dispatch Soviet capital ships.

The army too had, perhaps still has, nuclear artilliary shells intended to be used on the field of battle. Don't know much about these as I was a swabbie.

My point is that the transition to nuclear weapons isn't as great as launching a multi megaton weapon from space, but as simple as choosing to put a "little one" on the launcher (I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons aboard my ship).

Small facts of life you never really wanted to know...
 
Re: Speaking of nuclear...

Closet Desire said:
[BMy point is that the transition to nuclear weapons isn't as great as launching a multi megaton weapon from space, but as simple as choosing to put a "little one" on the launcher (I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons aboard my ship).[/B]

True but it's the psychological shift that would be dangerous. Once using nuclear weapons became the "norm", be they tactical or not, then the escalation to use more powerful ones would, I think, become easier.

:)
 
Re: Re: Speaking of nuclear...

p_p_man said:


True but it's the psychological shift that would be dangerous. Once using nuclear weapons became the "norm", be they tactical or not, then the escalation to use more powerful ones would, I think, become easier.

:)

We're not going to use tactical nukes in Afghanistan, PP.
 
Re: Re: Re: Speaking of nuclear...

WriterDom said:


We're not going to use tactical nukes in Afghanistan, PP.


Well this Daisy Cutter is pretty close to the real thing.

And you already know what I think about (**ahem's**) ability to conduct himself in a balanced manner.

But I hope you're right.

:cool:
 
peeeeeeeppeeeee

which is reported as creating the largest non-nuclear explosion in the American arsenal. Is somehow obscene

One of the objectives of war is to win it quickly. If you truly want to defeat the enemy you must use every non-nuclear weapon at your disposal to neutralize them- fast. To do any less is truly immoral. What is obscene is to fight a war with no objective or plan for victory (as in Vietnam) and drag the war on forever. Based on your logic, we should use less effective weapons, therefore extending the suffering of the Talibans, American, Afghans, and yes, even the Brits.
 
I thought we did get a neutron bomb working.

PP cut the crap you know we aren't gonna use nukes of any kind in Afganistan. Even bush is not that dumb. If something happend and he got that dumb no one in our government would approve it. You have to have two people authorize the use of nuclear weapons.

Nukes have way to many drawbacks to be used on a real battlefield. Makes me wonder why the army and marines devolved tactical nukes to use in artillery. I mean isn't that the stupidest thing in the world. Our guys are going to eventually have to advance on that position so lets hit it with a tatical nuke barrage and irradiate the whole area. :rolleyes:

I think, even though I am not positive, that neither the army or the marines still have there tactical artillery nukes. Maybe they have some left but i belive the majority got destroyed. Someone finally realized how stupid they were.
 
Re: I can't help feeling that a bomb of this magnitude...

p_p_man said:
which is reported as creating the largest non-nuclear explosion in the American arsenal. :(

No it is not the largest non-nuclear weapon in our inventory. That would be all of our extreme christian fundamentalist losers like Falwell, Pat Roberstson, and other regular 700 club guests.

It is my theory that by dropping them within a 100 feet of any taliban or other extremist fundamentalist in Afganistan that the effect would be like matter and anti-matter touching.

I mean come on we could level square miles of territory with this tactic. Whole cities would vanish. We don't even need to send ground troops in. I mean just air drop all of our crazy wacko extremist in to wipe out their crazy wacko extremists. Its not like anyone is going to miss them and we have plenty.

Azwed, "Get me the President. I know how we can end this war."
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Speaking of nuclear...

p_p_man said:



Well this Daisy Cutter is pretty close to the real thing.
Not even close, plus there is one other large difference - no fallout or radiation. Think! :rolleyes:
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Speaking of nuclear...

Shy Tall Guy said:
Not even close, plus there is one other large difference - no fallout or radiation. Think! :rolleyes:

Yeah no turning sand to green glass. The heat of the sun is a good thing as long as it is on the sun. I don't want it on the surface of the earth.
 
"Atomic Annie"

Azwed said:
Nukes have way to many drawbacks to be used on a real battlefield. Makes me wonder why the army and marines devolved tactical nukes to use in artillery. I mean isn't that the stupidest thing in the world. Our guys are going to eventually have to advance on that position so lets hit it with a tatical nuke barrage and irradiate the whole area. :rolleyes:

You have to remember when the two cannons known as "Atomic Anie" were designed and built in the 1950's that nobody knew very much about the lasting effects of radiation and fallout. Nuclear weapons were thought of as simply another form of high explosives. There were even proposals to dig a second central american canal using nukes to blast away the rock.

Azwed said:
I think, even though I am not positive, that neither the army or the marines still have there tactical artillery nukes. Maybe they have some left but i belive the majority got destroyed. Someone finally realized how stupid they were.

Even if the shells for Atomic Annie remain, there are no cannons to fire them -- both atomic cannons werre destroyed because they were to easy for the soviets to keep track of and took too long to set up.

(Source: a History channel "Tales of the Gun" episode on cannons.)

FWIW, modern tactical nukes are as "clean" as a nuclear bomb can be and don't leave the kinds of residual radiation hazards that the 1950's fission versions did. The tactics to go with them have changed as our knowledge of radiation hazards changed over the years too.

Also, the helipad in a can is NOT our most powerful conventional bomb. the article cited above mentions the "fuel/air" explosives that are about twice as powerful. Those were used in the gulf war to clear minefields with the blast.
 
Azwed said:
PP cut the crap you know we aren't gonna use nukes of any kind in Afganistan. Even bush is not that dumb. If something happend and he got that dumb no one in our government would approve it. You have to have two people authorize the use of nuclear weapons.


Well it wouldn't be unknown!

There was talk that America was considering dropping nuclear bombs on Hanoi during the Vietnam War.

Taken from the London Times Thursday 8th November 2001:

" In an earth-trembling roar that rattled the timbers of nearby Northern Alliance fortifications, the two 15,000lb American bombs — the largest non-nuclear weapons in the US armoury — appeared to suck the middle of the Taleban positions in Uzbashi upwards through a funnel nearly 600ft high before sending them drifting over the battlefield in a heavy, brown cloud."

:(
 
peepee what is your point?

Oh, no. Don't tell me.......we used bombs to kill the enemy.
Should we use less powerful ones, and not kill so many Taliban?

Trolling for an argument?
 
My point is...

that if after using more powerful bombs and the Talaban are still in control and bin Laden is still at large. What is the next step?

I can only see it being nuclear.

Kymberley and Miles It was all explained at the beginning of this thread. There have been side issues discussed, I agree, but they shouldn't have been too difficult to spot.

:p
 
We have only used two of the damn things give it some time. The psycological factor of seeing something like that go up must be devistating. This war is not going to end untill we have troops on the ground. Not just special forces either. You can't occupy territory with special forces and you can't hold a base of operations with them either. It is going to have to be infantry, mechnaized infantry, heavy armor and so on.

Weird Harold is right though the Daisy cutter is not out most powerful non-nuke. I was kind of confused when they said that in the article, since I had also hear of the aresol fuel/air were the most powerful. They are not as reliable though because of wind and such.

If Bush ever said even jokinly that he wanted to use nukes, then I can just see Colin Powel dick smacking him into next week. I just got this feeling that Powel has the dick to do it too. :D
 
Back
Top