WASHINGTON (March 11) - In a flashy debut for its biggest non-nuclear bomb, the Air Force on Tuesday dropped a 21,000-pound behemoth onto a test range in Florida, hoping the test would rattle nerves in Iraq as well.

The bomb test was declared a success, but movement on other fronts in the U.S.-led push toward war was murkier.

At the United Nations, the United States and Britain faced the prospect of defeat for their resolution giving Iraq until Monday to disarm or be invaded, and it appeared they might agree to a short extension of the deadline.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld suggested that even the participation of America's closest ally, Britain, in the combat phase of disarming Iraq was in doubt. Later he appeared to back away from that idea.

''Until we know what the resolution is (going to say), we won't know the answer as to what their role will be,'' Rumsfeld said of the British military, which is deploying 45,000 troops to the Gulf.

''And to the extent they are able to participate - in the event that the president decides to use force - that would obviously be welcomed,'' he added. ''To the extent they're not, there are work-arounds and they would not be involved, at least in that phase of it.''

Asked whether that meant the United States was considering going to war without Britain, he said, ''That is an issue that the president will be addressing in the days ahead, one would assume.''

Later, after reports that British officials were surprised by the comments, Rumsfeld's office issued a written statement saying his main point in the news conference was that obtaining a second U.N. Security Council resolution ''is important to the United Kingdom'' and that both countries were working to achieve it.

''In the event that a decision to use force is made, we have every reason to believe there will be a significant military contribution from the United Kingdom,'' Rumsfeld's statement said.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair faces enormous public opposition to his stance in support of Bush.

In London, Blair's office told The Associated Press: ''This does not change anything. We are still working for a second resolution. We are not at a state of military combat but there has been complete cooperation between the United Kingdom and the United States throughout on the military planning side.''

The U.S. commander who would lead a war against Iraq, Gen. Tommy Franks, met in Amman, Jordan, with King Abdullah II on Tuesday. Franks' office was releasing few details about his schedule, although officials said he was headed to Afghanistan to visit U.S. troops and then to the Persian Gulf. His last stop will be his Gulf command post at Camp As Sayliyah, Qatar.

Over Iraq, two American U-2 surveillance planes flying on behalf of U.N. weapons inspectors aborted their missions after Iraq raised objections. There were conflicting reports on the circumstances. An Iraqi official described the incident as a ''technical mistake'' by the U.N inspectors; Pentagon officials said it was too early to know who was to blame.

At a joint news conference with Rumsfeld, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the number of American forces now arrayed against Iraq exceeded 225,000 and more were en route.

Neither Myers nor Rumsfeld would say whether the 21,000-pound Air Force bomb that was tested for the first time Tuesday would be used in a war against Iraq. It is officially designated the Massive Ordnance Air Blast, or MOAB, although it has come to be called unofficially the Mother of All Bombs, a rough allusion to Saddam Hussein's claim before the 1991 Gulf War that that conflict would be the ''mother of all battles.''

''Anything we have in the arsenal, anything that's in almost any stage of development, could be used,'' Myers said.

Cheryl Irwin, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said the test was considered a success.

''It did what they expected it to do. Nothing malfunctioned,'' she said.

The Air Force has not said how such a bomb might be used in combat. John Pike, a defense analyst with GlobalSecurity.org, said Tuesday it might be useful against Iraqi Republic Guard formations or even targets around Baghdad such as one of Saddam's palaces.

Rumsfeld indicated that the big bomb, which was dropped out the back of a C-130 transport plane over a test range at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., was as much a psychological tool as any weapon.

''The goal is to not have a war,'' he said. ''The goal is to have the pressure be so great that Saddam Hussein cooperates. Short of that ... the goal is to have the capabilities of the coalition so clear and so obvious that there is an enormous disincentive for the Iraqi military to fight against the coalition and there's an enormous incentive for Saddam Hussein to leave and spare the world a conflict.''

A Pentagon official who reviewed a videotape of the test said the bomb created a tall cloud of debris that billowed into the sky but did not resemble the mushroom-shaped cloud of a nuclear blast. The Air Force videotape was to be released later.

Some area residents felt the bomb's detonation but said the explosion was not as big as they had expected.

''It was kind of weak,'' said Patricia Sariego, a receptionist at the Best Western hotel in Navarre, on the southern edge of Eglin. She said the blast shook doors.

I agree with you on everything you just said there. Those are my axact feelings on war.

Doomsday is a pretty grim view of the future. I agree with you, Siientx, that the current system of managing society is ill-equipped to handle many things that need to be dealt with properly.

However, I am confident that we, human beings, will prevail out of our own greed and selfishness. Future generations will have to deal with the [stuff] we throw in the toilet today. It will strengthen them, toughen them up, force them to understand and follow through and things we don't bother with (but should) today.

Humans react very well to crisis. The market economic system is very well-equipped at handling fast-moving, crisis situations when they arise. But we are absolutely awful at thinking of long-term solutions. This is something, I believe, future generations will have solved, and that is why I am confident that there will not be a Doomsday that will be the end of everything.

-Dagolar

Geo wrote:

Since when did the U.S. become the chief of every country? I actually think it's not right that only the U.S. and I beleive Russia can have nuclear weapons and no other countrys

Actually there are several nations with nuclear weapons. Off the top of my head, I can think of the US, Russia, France, Great Britain, Israel, India, Pakistan, China(and how about that -- I just looked it up and I got 'em all right! Except I should probably say UK instead of GB).

Here's an interesting article on the world situation, if you're in the mood for some light reading.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/ defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-031103A

more then half the world (and thats a statistic) is pro-war. The only reason it dosn't look it is because the media does not show anyone who is pro-war. they get coverage on the anti-war protests. THATS MESSED UP!

Where the hell did you get a statistic like that? Look at the anti-war protesting going on right now against the U.S. plan for war. Countries, worldwide, are displaying polls where 70, 80, even 90 percent of the population opposes a war without U.N (in my opinion, more justified) resolution. You're going to have to show me your "statistic" there.

I don't disagree that the media does not cover certain things, but to say that most of the world is pro-war is an absolutely bogus propogandized statement.

-Dagolar

Interesting you make that point. Iraq is seen as a threat from by the U.S., and yet Iraq conforms to the exact specifications you just spoke of for India and Pakistan.

-Dagolar

(p.s. if anyone thinks there's some sort of underlying agenda to the U.S. "plan" for Iraq, I think you're on to something. I'd like to hear it.)

Weapons inspectors showed evidence that the nuclear program was scrapped quite some time ago due to a lack of resources, so they claim. In any case, the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" argument coming from the White House is getting very old.

-Dagolar

Jotdaniel wrote:

I'm getting damn tired of hearing the words "weapons of mass destruction."

I'll take that over "nucular" any day of the week.