Is there any airplane that could carry a 700 ton bomb? Or is this

[rzemanfl]

just a way to simulate the effect of a small nuke?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060330/pl_afp/usmilitaryweaponstest_060330234453;_ylt=ApzNggjRrdzAhO2QZ0SQTjhsbEwB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

[TomInTib]

1. That was my first thought when I saw that article.

How in the world will they get that thing to any altitude whatsoever?

[bbinacan]

2. If not a plane,

maybe an ICBM.:shrug:

[Initech]

3. There's only one plane in the world that could carry a 700 ton bomb...

And still fly, and it's not even made in the US. It's this plane here:

[catnhatnh]

9. Then the sucker has GOT

to be an Antonov,right???

[Initech]

10. Yup, it's the 225. The inside is big enough to play...

a game of regulation American football. Complete with regulation-size goal posts.

[Jacobin]

11. This site says it 'only' carries 150 metric tons

Nowhere near 700 tons.

I'm thinking the article added an extra zero to the report.

70 tons would be a BITCH to drop and still maintain control of the aircraft

[Warren Stupidity]

17. No it is a simulated nuke.

The Asshats are warning Iran that they are going to nuke them.

[Gabi Hayes]

16. where'd you get 700 TONS? that's 1400 one THOUSAND pound bombs!

the max payload is somewhere between 150 and 250 T., according to several sites I've seen.

a B1 holds only about a 150 thousand pound payload

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/extreme_machines/1280771.html

[catnhatnh]

4. Whoa guys,whoa....

The BOMB doesn't WEIGH 700 tons-it has the destructive power of 700 tons of TNT....otherwise a small tactical nuke could only be exploded where it was produced(we tried this but found it unsatisfactory-LOL).

[RoyGBiv]

6. Not quite ...

From the article ...

"DTRA said the charge consists of 700 tonnes of commercial ammonium nitrate-fuel oil (ANFO) explosives, which is the equivalent of 593 tonnes of TNT."

[catnhatnh]

7. As Mr Chekov used to say on the bridge of the Enterprise...

"FASCINATING Keptin.)...Now I believe the announced purpose was an investigation into penetrator bombs-so why are we trying the Timothy McVeigh Special as the main ingredient....If I recall my Shakespeare correctly "SOMEONE doth LIE!"

[RoyGBiv]

8. I'm with ya ...

This stinks in all kinds of ways.

It's also going to get the OKC bombing conspiracy theorists going again.

[rzemanfl]

18. They are saying this is 700 tons of fertilizer and fuel oil that

is the equivalent of a lesser amount of TNT. Only nukes produce more than their weight in TNT equivalent explosive power.

[Jacobin]

19. Hmm. A McVeigh Bomb

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. That would be a ground detonation. There's no aircraft in the

world that could carry a 700ton weapon.

That said, I hope that there will be people with geigers downwind of the blast. This administration will lie about anything, and I have no doubt they'd lie about using a nuke and calling it a conventional blast.

My first thought was that they intend to try out the new nuke bunker buster to make sure it has the penetration to reach a hardened bunker, and not just blow a hole in the surface. The question for them is, will the bomb or missile penetrate without destroying itself? It would not be cool to drop a nuke on someone and have it not detonate because of being too badly damaged - giving them the nuclear component of a bomb they can throw back at you.

[madokie]

12. I believe when it is said 700 ton, they are meaning the equivalent of

700 tons of tnt not the weight of the bomb. me thinks

[Warren Stupidity]

15. see post #6

they meant 700 * 2000 lbs of bomb material.

[rzemanfl]

20. A conventional bomb weighs what it weighs, explosive, casing

and guidance (if "smart") as far as I know.

This is blatant saber-rattling by BushCo.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Test ban treaty prohibits any nuke tests

"Each State Party undertakes not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, and to prohibit and prevent any such nuclear explosion at any place under its jurisdiction or control.

Each State Party undertakes, furthermore, to refrain from causing, encouraging, or in any way participating in the carrying out of any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Test_Ban_Treaty

So to test out our 'bunker buster' nukes that we are (NOT) developing we are simulating the explosive force with the Mother of All McVeigh Bombs.

You can't fly a 700 Ton bomb anywhere useful.

[rzemanfl]

21. I am sure that Gonzalez would say that treaty is "quaint" or

some other bullshit.

[enlightenment]

14. No plane; they're going to mix

the crud at the site and put it in a hole along with the C4 -- then use an electronic pulse to detonate the C4, which will detonate the 700 tons of crud.
Though they don't say it, you know it's supposed to simulate a nuke -- but we haven't full tested one of those since 1992 (only sub-critical tests since then).
Bush wants a bomb and he's going to get one, regardless of the impact (no pun intended).

I just finished reading the Nov 2005 pre-approval draft; I am just SOOOO thrilled. Not.

I couldn't recall hearing about this before; and since I live in LV I was puzzled. I checked the newspaper archives and found nothing, despite the fact that the pre-approval draft is on a NV government web site, and indicates that there was a public comment period that ended in January. Apparently, the media didn't feel it was news worthy that they're planning on doing this.