Quote of the day
posted at 10:30 pm on September 12, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
“Despite its destructive qualities, the bomb is environmentally friendly, Gen Rushkin said.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
All the destruction without the messy nuclear fallout. Joy.
Ordinary1 on September 12, 2007 at 10:35 PM
Does it have carbon offsets? ‘Cause we wouldn’t want to tick off DiCaprio or Manbearpig.
mjk on September 12, 2007 at 10:41 PM
No doubt the eco-kooks will approve of using this to deal with the human virus infecting Mother Gaia.
infidel4life on September 12, 2007 at 10:42 PM
I don’t believe them.
Zorro on September 12, 2007 at 10:43 PM
There is nothing better than an Eco friendly bomb. A really BIG Eco friendly bomb.
Cinematicfilm on September 12, 2007 at 10:44 PM
I just got this quote today from the Patriot Post (they email commentary and quotes). I wondered when would be an appropriate time to use it. Didn’t take long.
INC on September 12, 2007 at 10:49 PM
What ever happened to the neutron bomb?
Pablo on September 12, 2007 at 10:54 PM
Just another fuel bomb. I’ll start to worry when I see that parachute over Ft. Worth.
Limerick on September 12, 2007 at 10:58 PM
Well atleast they werent working on a “Gay” bomb
William Amos on September 12, 2007 at 10:58 PM
NEW FROM BOMBCO It has all the devastating destruction of a nuke without the messy fallout. PLUS Its environmentally friendly. GET YOURS TODAY!
sonnyspats1 on September 12, 2007 at 11:05 PM
I guess Pat Shroeder never read 1984. And she heads something or other regarding literacy? HA!
BKennedy on September 12, 2007 at 11:09 PM
The Prius of All Bombs
ZK on September 12, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Kinda like a Fuel-Air Explosive bomb? As in, nothing new?
Frozen Tex on September 12, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Nothing new, just 4x more destructive than the MOAB.
Snidely Whiplash on September 12, 2007 at 11:32 PM
Exactly.
SouthernDem on September 12, 2007 at 11:33 PM
But,you know,what about global(doesn’t exist)warming.
I wonder if the Ruskies would welcome enviromental wackos
impact study on their enviroment,ya he would tell them to do what?ha ha.
Well,looks like us Canadians are going to have to improve on the chicken cannon,no wait maybe we could rent the
Atomic Cannon.he he.
canopfor on September 12, 2007 at 11:33 PM
Whew! I was worried about global warming for a second there.
nottakingsides on September 12, 2007 at 11:38 PM
It doesn’t matter how big it is. They still have to deliver it and therein lies the crutch. Why not make one 10 times bigger? It will make for some real cool fireworks when the bomber gets shot down.
Guardian on September 12, 2007 at 11:40 PM
OT. Did anyone else notice the video that follows this one? Gentlemen prepare to wince.
Guardian on September 12, 2007 at 11:46 PM
A weapon like this,air-fuel device,would really
be affective thou,in the Muliple Burst scenario.
Each weapon dropped,the shockwaves overlap each other.
They say nuclear weapons in the Muliple Burst application,
again they overlap,shockwaves overlap,and bingo you have a nuclear mini hurricane.It’s a sure bet,with enough dropped
most countries wouldn’t exist.
canopfor on September 12, 2007 at 11:47 PM
It is a tactical weapon, not a strategic one. As Guardian said….get that Tupalov or their pride and joy the SU27 to the target first. That would be the trick, trying to push them thru western radar and early warning systems.
It is a chest-thumping weapon, nothing more.
Limerick on September 12, 2007 at 11:56 PM
I get the feeling that Putin isn’t getting enough love from the world community.
An environmentally friendly bomb makes it all better. Doesn’t it.
We need more weapons like this one.
Kini on September 13, 2007 at 12:19 AM
I read somewhere it has higher yield than our version because it uses a more explosive fuel that ours do.
Somewhat related, they are now calling those mortgages with teaser rates “neutron mortgages” because they destroy people and leave the building standing.
pedestrian on September 13, 2007 at 12:23 AM
Wait a second…., a Vacuum Bomb?!?
Isn’t that suppose to suck?
Kini on September 13, 2007 at 12:35 AM
A true nuclear bomb is carbon-neutral.
Only Nukes are really eco-friendly.
Kristopher on September 13, 2007 at 12:43 AM
Well they wasted a ton of money. All they had to do was drop Brittany’s new CD. Biggest Bomb Evah.
BacaDog on September 13, 2007 at 12:47 AM
Around here they’re called Sierra mountain oysters.
Speakup on September 13, 2007 at 1:17 AM
I couldn’t find the “Headline”, but Putin also said it’s time for Russians to put a bomb in their pants. I seem to remember from Mark Steyn’s book that Russia is the largest demographically doomed country in the world - a worse birthrate than China. Maybe Pootey-Poot is reading Steyn.
eeyore on September 13, 2007 at 1:58 AM
They were; the designers misheard it as a “Gaia” bomb.
Karl on September 13, 2007 at 2:18 AM
Does this mean the Father of all Bombs is the carbon neutral equivalent of the Mother of all Bombs?
I don’t know about you guys but that feels incestuous
Defector01 on September 13, 2007 at 2:43 AM
But the MOAB is much prettier.
jmarcure on September 13, 2007 at 7:27 AM
OMG, the Russians built a big thermobaric bomb, all hail Putin. Yawn.
Buzzy on September 13, 2007 at 7:54 AM
The term vacuum bomb is rather ignorant. Any large explosion will suck air towards it to feed the fire. Nothing new there.
Personally, I think it’s ridiculous that nuclear bombs are machine non grata. We built them at great expense, but now we can’t use them because of some radioactive fallout? That is political correctness run amuck. I can tell you that our enemies have no concerns about the environment.
jihadwatcher on September 13, 2007 at 8:30 AM
Hahahahahaha
Troy Rasmussen on September 13, 2007 at 10:00 AM
As usual, the Russians are a decade or two behind the times. Big non-penetrating blasts have their uses, but they’re pretty limited. On the US side MOAB isn’t a waste of money, but we still haven’t used one in anger (though we presumably would have if we’d had it in Afghanistan, where we used the old Vietnam-era Daisy Cutters instead).
The real cutting edge isn’t bigger, it’s smaller. The most exciting new thing around is the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb–it’s versatile, it’s ideal for employment in close-air support and urban combat, and essentially all existing warplanes can carry a large number of them. And it’s already been used in Iraq.
Blacklake on September 13, 2007 at 12:15 PM