US drops largest non-nuclear bomb in Afghanistan

[britishbubba]

The GBU-43 MOAB was succeeded by the heavier GBU-57 MOP, two of which will fit in the B-2. There's at least one B-52 that's been modified to drop them as well. Only one batch of MOABs was built before development switched over to the MOP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massiv...nce_Penetrator

6.2m x 0.8m

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-43...ance_Air_Blast

9.18m x 1.03m

Weighs more, but it's smaller.

[Halicia]

Tell that to Japan

Japan had already lost the war, silly... but I guess they don't teach history anymore in schools.

If you want to stop terrorism, end the hate and stop killing civilians.

[Gimlix]

You have no idea how rich we are. California alone is richer than France.

Time to start paying the debts then? How far is it by now? Quite alot aint it? :P

[HumbleDuck]

Do you even know what guerilla warfare is? You can't win such a war with traditional armies, actually no one ever has.

- - - Updated - - -

Tell that to Japan

Yea, the war was already won by that time.

[Netherblood]

Yeah I'm seeing a lot of comparisons drawn on other forums between the MOAB and the bombs we dropped on Japan but there is just no comparing the two. The ONLY nuke it is comparable to is the size of a beach ball, and even that is capable of twice the yield as a MOAB.

Even then Japan nukes are small in comparison to modern nukes, modern nukes are many more times destructive.

[Alydael]

What are you even on about? This "hands tied behind their backs" is an empty one liner. You have no idea what you are talking about. This is like the Nazi "Stab in the back" argument about Germany losing the war.

The inability to recognize and admit to an overall strategic failure. Did Bush run the show so much better? Did we win in Afghanistan under Bush? Did we win in Iraq? How did Obama snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

The problem doesn't actually lie specifically with either administration (tho Bush certainly made it worse), but rather with a multi decade long failure of US foreign policy in the Middle East.

What are our objectives? How do we achieve them? If the objective is the installation of liberal democracies and strong safe states in the sectarian, tribal, impoverished countries like Iraq and Afghanistan we failed spectacularly from the get go, and independently from how many people we drone or cluster bomb we are just making the situation worse, by turning the local population against us, and by creating battlefields to where suicidal lunatics can flock to become martyrs.

Permanent occupation is unjustifiable and unsustainable.

Acting like mass murdering manics will simply expand the scope of a limited conflict into a possibly much much greater one.

This is a fuckton more complicated than the idiotic one liners of -Hands tied- and -Blame Obama-.



And yet, we can't afford healthcare or education. 'Cuz reasons.

Idiotic military spending is idiotic. It is literally burning money. Can we afford it? Maybe. Should we do it regardless? Absolutely no.

But that is not the point. I very much think that every available resource is ought to be used if it is necessary, that is not the point. The question rather is, are we using the right tactics and strategy to secure the objective?

And, what the fuck are our objectives in the first damn place?

I never said Bush did anything better. I don't actually agree with any of these wars and said as much in my posts. However, if we are going to send troops (which we will as long as we have a Dem or Pub in office- since they seem to love these little "wars"). I think we owe it to those troops (who are putting their lives on the line) to try to win the war.

I personally feel these conflicts are basically "unwinnable." What is a "win" in Iraq? Does anyone truly believe, if we totally leave, that Iraq will still be a democracy in the future? What about Afghanistan or Syria, What constitutes a "win?"

I would like it if we never bothered with this mess, but we did. Now, unfortunately, we have to finish the job.

As for Obama's rules on engagement: He had us drop phamphlets over an hour in advance of bombing ISIS (yeah, I am sure the terrorists stuck around for that bomb)
On the BBC, one general at the time (2009) describe one of the rules ""If you are in a situation where you are under fire from the enemy... if there is any chance of creating civilian casualties or if you don't know whether you will create civilian casualties, if you can withdraw from that situation without firing, then you must do so."

How can you ask people to put their life on the line then do things like drop pamphlets and don't allow them to shoot? Our soldiers are people too (whether you agree with these wars or not), they have families and children as well.

Obama did not loosen these rules until 2016, when ISIS was in full swing and he realized how terrible these rules were (7 years later).
I never blamed Obama for the war, but I do blame the Dems and Pubs collectively. They ran into this situation with their typical- shoot first, ask later pig- headedness and look at this situation now.

As for understanding the war- who understands the Mid_east situation fully? No one in this forum, for sure. I am not even sure "experts" understand it. There are so many tribes, sects, dialects, beliefs, etc That it is almost impossible to fully understand, especially if you are not from there. Another reason to not even go there.

We have never "won" any of these little wars (even during the Cold War). I wonder when we will wake up and realize that.

[Wyrt]

Time to start paying the debts then? How far is it by now? Quite alot aint it? :P

Would be nice if we weren't paying so much to the federal government and getting so little in return. But I guess someone has to subsidize the shithole states.

[PickleballAce]

Europeans in this thread being their typical delicate selves.

[Deleted]

I mean obviously Isis doesn't care either since they're often hidingbamongst civilians. I notice you aren't complaining about that though.

WTF, really, is that how this is spun in America??? This is absolutely banana's "ISIS doesn't care, so why should we", this is something i would expect a 6 year old to say. This isn't about ISIS or what ISIS does, this is about America and America not caring for the civilian populous.

[TheFirstOnes]

Good.

/10chars

[Tommi]

The US doesn't need to deal with the fallout of this shit, Europe does.

Thank fuck for Brexit.

[Rox the sox]

*Educated.

As someone with an academic education in military strategy etc. I can confirm that 'heavily' bombing a shithole like Afghanistan isn't about efficient military results, but about flexing muscles.

That said I don't particularly care either way.

As someone with an academic education in bullshittery, this is bullshit.

[Rox the sox]

Never heard of military academies?

Sure I have. What you post here shows you haven't been to one.

[Edge-]

*Educated.

As someone with an academic education in military strategy etc. I can confirm that 'heavily' bombing a shithole like Afghanistan isn't about efficient military results, but about flexing muscles.

That said I don't particularly care either way.

Are you trying to tell me that "SHOCK AND AWE" is not an effective strategy?... : P

[iperson]

Any money spent on bombs is money not spent on other things. There's really no way to recapture wasted funds from wasteful bombing, so even if you make more money, whether you mean print more (bad idea) or generate more (not that simple), you'll still ultimately have fewer resources to put towards other things.

Dead terrorists can't kill American service members. Americans who don't die to terrorists can go on to live productive lives.

[Al Gorefiend]

The bombs not meant for ISIS, its for others to see.

Thread closed. This was a taunt more than an assault on ISIS.

[JohnBrown1917]

The US doesn't need to deal with the fallout of this shit, Europe does.

Thank fuck for Brexit.

Don't make us build the dogger polder.

[Lynarii]

It's well known that terrorists are hiding in tunnels and underground. Until this point, we weren't dropping bombs that could reach those tunnels.

So, I was looking at it like this:

Fighting with troops on the ground and bombs and missles that could not reach the tunnels, caves and bunkers underground= ineffective, waste of time

Dropping bombs that can actually reach the tunnels and bunkers= more effective and at least a step in the right direction.

You have to go in to fight the war under the conditions that actually exist. If the terrorists are hiding in bunkers and tunnels underground- you have to drop bombs that have a payload that can actually reach them.

You realize that the MOAB dropped is not a penetrator bomb and is designed specifically for soft to medium surface targets, right? It's completely ineffective against people hiding in fortified bunkers and underground tunnels. The goal of this type of bomb is to have a very very wide surface blast, in particular it's amazing at clearing out things like forests or canyons. Dropping it on Afghanistan is a psychological attack more than anything else.

[Stormspark]

How big of a blast it was compared to nuclear bombs? Like Hiroshima, that was what...15 kilotons? Or was it 25?

So was this MOAB thing about 10 kilotons more or less?

11 tons. Compared to 21,000 tons for Fat Man at Hiroshima. So yeah, not even close. Even the smallest nuke we ever used was 1909x more powerful.

[Yunru]

When Hunting Monsters Make Sure To Not Become One Because If You Do There Will Always Be One Monster Left To Kill.....

Giving a fuck about civilian's is a major thing on what makes us different then the bad guys.

You are right. We should totaly warn them before we nuke them:


In little kids voice.