US drops largest non-nuclear bomb in Afghanistan

[Tierbook]

You're right. But neither did you pay the $14 billion costs. Your money helped a little. My money helped you a little for your programs. That is how infrastructure spending works.

But if you want to spend MORE than we do on infrastructure? That's mostly State problem you have, not a federal one.

Depends on the infrastructure in question of course, building a tunnel/bridge to shave 10min off your commute is a local/state problem. Deepening a port/improving connectivity across the country, such as in the electrical grid IS something that should be dealt with at a federal level if for no reason other than they tend to be national security concerns or provide enough of a benefit to receive the funds promptly.

[Stormspark]

A side note too, Russia actually built but never tested a bomb double the size of the Tzar Bomba (so it would have been 100 Mt, Tzar Bomba was 50 Mt). Supposedly they were concerned of the large area affected by a test that large, even in the Soviet Union in the Cold War.

Actually, Tsar Bomba was designed and built as a 100MT device. For the test, they modified it with an additional U-238 fusion tamper to reduce fallout and to ensure that the test plane would be able to get clear before it detonated. This modification reduced the yield to 50MT. So yes, it was 100MT, before they deliberately reduced it for the test. If they had ever decided to deploy it in a non-test situation, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have put the modifications in.

[Paranoid Android]

You're right. But neither did you pay the $14 billion costs. Your money helped a little. My money helped you a little for your programs. That is how infrastructure spending works.

But if you want to spend MORE than we do on infrastructure? That's mostly State problem you have, not a federal one.

I understand but you do know at least most here in MMO-C use that stupid logic when it comes to federal programs. They swear they are paying for one individual say, on medicare/medicaid. I was being a bit of contrarian, since when they make that argument I always come back with "I don't want my tax dollars to buy a new bomb, therefore I don't want to pay taxes.". Thus we can all pick a program and basically we would have no tax base. Rambling on...

Infrastructure helps commerce and of course every day citizen. I'm not a person who want to give a blank check and I understand government spending bills in hands of these people are scary. Case in point, Bridge to Nowhere. We have this discussion a few times, which amazes me about conservative. Military, Blank Check. Infrastructure and money that will improve lives and we will actually pay for itself down the road. No way.

- - - Updated - - -

Depends on the infrastructure in question of course, building a tunnel/bridge to shave 10min off your commute is a local/state problem. Deepening a port/improving connectivity across the country, such as in the electrical grid IS something that should be dealt with at a federal level if for no reason other than they tend to be national security concerns or provide enough of a benefit to receive the funds promptly.

Agree. If we had a great rail system to relieve traffic and commute time. A great investment right there. Yes, @Skroe can make the point if to say most is done in the Eastern corridor it may not benefit someone in Mississippi. They obviously don't need much infrastructure.

[Skroe]

Depends on the infrastructure in question of course, building a tunnel/bridge to shave 10min off your commute is a local/state problem. Deepening a port/improving connectivity across the country, such as in the electrical grid IS something that should be dealt with at a federal level if for no reason other than they tend to be national security concerns or provide enough of a benefit to receive the funds promptly.

This is accurate, which is why some degree of Federal infrastructure spending is perfectly acceptable.

But to be blunt, it is not my tax dollars role, to fix your pot holes. I don't expect South Carolina taxpayers to pay for my Boston roads, which winter utterly chews up. That is fair. I live here, you don't.

By in large, when people talk infrastructure, that is what they mean. Or a new airport. Or a new public transportation extension. Something of that nature. Like the Big Dig, mostly State and Local money is required. State and Local officials know best. State and Local contractors benefit.

But to get back to the overarching question, I'm happy to help on people's infrastructure needs to some degree, but beyond that, I want my tax dollars going into things like MOAB (for example), because my monetary interest in your infrastructure problems do have limits, as I would expect yours are with mine. The things we can take of via federalism (so via state and local control) we should. The things we have to pool on, we should. Infrastructure is pooled on only to a limited degree, and the choice between defense spending and infrastructure is a dirty misconception.

[Tierbook]

Because it IS well-functioning.
We don't have the need for an army to invade other countries, contrary to other "anti-war" nations.

Wasn't it the Netherlands that needed help from another country to escort a Russian ship through their territorial waters because they had no ships present at home, and none of their aircraft were able to suffice. Or was that Belgium?

[Skroe]

I understand but you do know at least most here in MMO-C use that stupid logic when it comes to federal programs. They swear they are paying for one individual say, on medicare/medicaid. I was being a bit of contrarian, since when they make that argument I always come back with "I don't want my tax dollars to buy a new bomb, therefore I don't want to pay taxes.". Thus we can all pick a program and basically we would have no tax base. Rambling on...

Infrastructure helps commerce and of course every day citizen. I'm not a person who want to give a blank check and I understand government spending bills in hands of these people are scary. Case in point, Bridge to Nowhere. We have this discussion a few times, which amazes me about conservative. Military, Blank Check. Infrastructure and money that will improve lives and we will actually pay for itself down the road. No way.

Most of the "conservative" people here are nothing of the sort though. They're mouth breathing knuckledraggers whose political knowledge is so one dimensional that they think that the opposition to the "liberals" they so detest for one (dumb) reason or another, is "conservatism". I have 30 year old G.I. Joes more conservative than these losers. You think liberals suffer dealing with these people? I see in them frauds... frauds for days.

I think if I've made one thing clear though, I'm for a very, very strong... really unfairly strong (because fair fights are dumb) defense. And I'm for an assertive, but strategically pragmatic America. But I'm quite anti-interventionist. Squaring all of these is not easy. Fake conservatives often get so enamored of the big stick they want to smack somebody with it, just to feel tough. Yeah I lived that. Back in 2003. It doesn't work. It'll never work. The big stick works to put points on the board as part of a broader strategy, not to make some facile gesture of dominance, which is to say, most interventionist foreign policy.

What I wrote is the essence of one conservative principle though: a strong emphasis on state and local control to fix problems. I believe that, among other things, it enforces more accountability. The US is enormous and already suffers from scale problems that even large European states like France and Germany do not. But if you want to see it worse, see the scale problems of India or China. The US would not work under a pre-devolution British, or French unitary system. Due to our sheer size, diversity, and population letting State and Local manage as many affairs as possible I believe is the only viable way to efficiently govern a country this large. If we were Denmark, I'd say a very different thing.

Infrastructure spending is incredibly important and I wholeheartedly support it. But when we're talking about where the money comes from, it's not factual to say dollars for guns and dollars for cement are in competition. They aren't. It's more accurate to say dollars for grandma's pills and grandma's retirement is in competition with guns and pretty much everything else, and always wins. Infrastructure isn't really even in that game.

[Gib Lover]

Because it IS well-functioning.
We don't have the need for an army to invade other countries, contrary to other "anti-war" nations.

You are really butthurt about my anti-war comment, aren't you.

It's a flat out fact that a majority of Americans don't support our last like 3 wars. We aren't a pure democracy, almost nothing in our laws/government is done through pure majority. If our representatives vote against who they represent, that is within their power to do so. They probably won't get reelected but hey that's their prerogative. Just because we aren't rising up and taking arms against our own government for getting us into wars we don't want to be in AS A MAJORITY of our population of 325 million people doesn't make us "anti-war" it just means both of our deeply flawed political parties in our two party system happen to like conflict.

The biggest protest in world history was by Americans against the Iraq war, even. Joe Blow American doesn't want war, we don't want to be world police that is just an undeniable fact. Our government on the other hand...

Late edit: when you reply to this, know I was wrong and Skroe showed me why later in the comments, my bad

[Skroe]

Wasn't it the Netherlands that needed help from another country to escort a Russian ship through their territorial waters because they had no ships present at home, and none of their aircraft were able to suffice. Or was that Belgium?

Netherlands is one of those European countries that has its own independent frigate program (for some reason) that it's going to drop an enormous amount of money on, rather than buying French, German, or the other 10 potential suitors that come in between 4000 and 6500 tons displacement. And because of that it'll buy two ships to replace the six it scrapped, rather than, you know, buying six of an established design in production.

Witness the problem of European defense spending: it's mostly a jobs program to keep contractors open that should have been consolidated decades ago open.

[Bullettime]

Netherlands is one of those European countries that has its own independent frigate program (for some reason) that it's going to drop an enormous amount of money on, rather than buying French, German, or the other 10 potential suitors that come in between 4000 and 6500 tons displacement. And because of that it'll buy two ships to replace the six it scrapped, rather than, you know, buying six of an established design in production.

Witness the problem of European defense spending: it's mostly a jobs program to keep contractors open that should have been consolidated decades ago open.

It's certainly an interesting thing with the EU. They have the blueprints in place to become this massive thriving interconnected military juggernaut but instead of consolidating power, they hold on to these half assed shreds of "independence" and throw away the advantage in favor of what amounts to a jobs program and political back scratching.

[Tierbook]

Netherlands is one of those European countries that has its own independent frigate program (for some reason) that it's going to drop an enormous amount of money on, rather than buying French, German, or the other 10 potential suitors that come in between 4000 and 6500 tons displacement. And because of that it'll buy two ships to replace the six it scrapped, rather than, you know, buying six of an established design in production.

Witness the problem of European defense spending: it's mostly a jobs program to keep contractors open that should have been consolidated decades ago open.

So what your saying is that the Military Industrial complex is not only extremely present in Europe it is also one of the reasons that Europe is so weak when compared to the US

[the game]

So you think America is on the same level as ISIS? Everyone and their grandma knows ISIS are a bunch of bastards, lowering yourself to their level isn't something to be proud of. Of course people are going to complain about a western country not caring about civilians, that a terrorist group doesn't do this that isn't news.

You liberals love to twist things to fit your own agenda I give you that.

One could also say that people who don't complain about ISIS hiding behind civilians while denouncing America for casualties of ware are ok with ISIS hiding behind civilians for protection.

Civilian casualties aren't good. It sucks. It really does but people who live in reality understand that in war unintended casualties happen. That doesn't mean you support the casualties. Shit happens in wars.

Something needs to be done about ISIS. I don't see anyone else doing anything about it. The refugees from the middle east should be fighting for their homes. Not running away and letting isis get away with it.

[Skroe]

You are really butthurt about my anti-war comment, aren't you.

It's a flat out fact that a majority of Americans don't support our last like 3 wars. We aren't a pure democracy, almost nothing in our laws/government is done through pure majority. If our representatives vote against who they represent, that is within their power to do so. They probably won't get reelected but hey that's their prerogative. Just because we aren't rising up and taking arms against our own government for getting us into wars we don't want to be in AS A MAJORITY of our population of 325 million people doesn't make us "anti-war" it just means both of our deeply flawed political parties in our two party system happen to like conflict.

You got something terribly wrong.

Americans ENTHUSIASTICALLY supported the Afghan War. It had a 93% approval rating in 2001.

Americans HUGELY supported the Iraq War. It had a 77% approval rating in 2003. It had an 85% approval rating when Baghdad was taken. Everyone loves a winner.

Americans GENERALLY supported Libya adventure and did not approve Obama's "lead from behind".

What happened to all of these? Americans used their special mutant power: their ability to retcon their history and forget that they supported these things that dragged on, indecisively for years.


The Iraq War in particular, is the most single shameful thing this country has done in fifty years. And I don't mean our politicians. I means our people. Protests here were miniscule. The War vote was overwhelming. And to make matters better, Bush ran on a pro-War platform in 2004, and won and rightfully took that an affirmation of his policies. So not only did Americans support the war, but 18 months later, after the looting in Iraq, they sent it's architect back for a second go.

Weapons of Mass Destruction? Abu Ghirab? Americans barely cared. 60 minutes was spamming us with that stuff. Big goddamn shrug. What changed the public's opinion on the war? It had nothing to do with the war really: it was Hurricane Katrina. It became clear George W Bush's administration couldn't do anything right. Suddenly, WMD's mattered. Suddenly people didn't REALLY support the war... they were duped! They were promised it would end in 100 days.

It was all nonsense. The American people ENTHUSIASTICALLY supported the ruining of a country. And when it went to shit, they decided that it really wasn't their fault because they were hoodwinked into it en-masse.

This is the American Way of war. The one that mildly complains about "going shopping" while Troops fight, but enjoys their tax cuts. The one that sent millennials to Afghanistan and Iraq on three tours and called the former "the forgotten war" and the latter "a quagmire".

We're a non-serious nation that mistook incredible luck, like winning the Cold War in the manner we did, for skill. We take everything - from our security position to our friends to our finances - for granted.

You want to talk about Anti-War? That's the tip of the iceberg. Wars or no wars, it's all the tip of the iceberg of the American pathology that's gotten fat and stupid from 70 years of relative plenty... custodians of an inheritance we're not at all worthy of.

The best part is, the clocks ticking. Back when we were nationally lying to ourselves about our "good wars" in the Early 2000s, we had projections about the fiscal day of doom in the late 2020s or early 2030s. No problem we thought. We had three decades to work on it. And here we are... it's 2017. We've burned through over half our times. Hows that going? Oh yeah... we've been procrastinating and discussing anything but our country's serious money problems, which doesn't just underwrite our military juggernaut, but underwrites us preventing grandma from dying in the cold of winter on the street.

So maybe Americans will step up to the plate. we got what.. 10, maybe 15 more years? But don't you dare blame this on our politicians or a "political class". There's been so much churn and turnover... they may be the functional executioners of our historic and truly epic stupidity, but we're the enablers. America's enormous problems are due to Americans being really quick to pat themselves on the back and put ideology ahead of pragmatism.

- - - Updated - - -

So what your saying is that the Military Industrial complex is not only extremely present in Europe it is also one of the reasons that Europe is so weak when compared to the US

Wellll sorta. Little bit of history is needed. Here's a picture.


Over the course of the Cold War the US (and Europe) built up enormous defense industries (with World War II's industries providing a foundation).

In 1993, the Cold War ended. The Pentagon at the so called "Last Supper" ordered the US defense industry to consolidate. Yes, that actually happened. They said the money was going to be a lot less, but they still needed an industry, so start merging. What you got was that chart.

And here is ship building specifically.


The US defense industry CERTAINLY over-consolidated. Why that happened is complicated. But it was way too big in 1993 for post-Cold War needs. Even today breaking up the industry into more companies (which should happen, particularly Lockheed Martin) would take it no where close to where it was in 1993.

But the point I wanted to make is that there is no real graph like this for Europe. There was some joint ventures, like the Eurofighter or the A400M. There was Airbus (to a degree). But the Defense Industries that sprung up during the Cold War were often State owned. For example a major defense tech company today is the British firm Qinetiq. Until 2001, it was the UK MoD's Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA), their version of DARPA, that they privatized and sold off. Most still are state run or state-majority owned. If you want a good non-NATO example of this, look at how Russia privized it's defense industry in the 1990s, and the Putin unified them under government-owned parent companies in the 2000s (i.e United Aircraft, the parent company of Sukhoi, Mikoyan, Tupolev, Yakovlev, Illyshin, Irkut and others).

Consolidating European defense firms would mean countries giving up domestic defense production capability. That's not an easy thing to ask, especially if, in some cases, we're talking history shipyards that have been open for hundreds of years. When the US consolidated its defense industry, it put millions of Americans out of work over time. It drained economic activity from places. It was necessary of course, but we shouldn't be under the illusion it was easy at all. Now with Europe, it would be even harder. And you have to get country's doing awkward but necessary things, like getting the British to replace their tank with the next-Gen German-French design, for example.

If Trump and the US is serious about making NATO stronger as a fighting force, the single best thing it can do is HELP.. not order... HELP with continent wide European defense consolidation, and help organize a continental defense procurement plan to reduce redundancies, and allow larger orders at lower-per unit costs.

You do that... 2%? You won't have to get close to that to have a better fighting force. But right now we have a Europe that has inherited 28 different tanks, 15 different frigates, six different carriers, at least ten different submarines. Consider Massachusetts. In terms of population and GDP it is pretty much Denmark. Do we ask Massachusetts to have an army, navy, and air force, and field all it's own (or mostly) domestically produced systems, and man it? No we don't. It could never do it efficiently. But to a degree, that's what Denmark does, and it's insane.

Fixing this is fixing NATO, period. There is a second layer - sharing of military assets. But that's another thing. Step one is get the French buying German, the German buying Italian, the Italians buying British and the Spanish buying Norwegian. Hell the United States is in need of a 4500-6000 ton displacement "frigate". There's 10 European options... and the Pentagon is starting to seriously think about buying one, rather than blowing a decade and $30 billion on a clean sheet design.

[Gib Lover]

I don't know why you think our protests of the Iraq war were minuscule, like I said they were literally the largest protests in human history.

We absolutely were war hungry after 9/11, but by the 2003 invasion we were not wanting to be involved anymore, case in point the 15 million people that gathered to shout "no."

Maybe I just have more faith in our people and am blind to the facts, but if you are right then meh fuck us.

[Skroe]

I don't know why you think our protests of the Iraq war were minuscule, like I said they were literally the largest protests in human history.

We absolutely were war hungry after 9/11, but by the 2003 invasion we were not wanting to be involved anymore, case in point the 15 million people that gathered to shout "no."

Maybe I just have more faith in our people and am blind to the facts, but if you are right then meh fuck us.

I am absolutely right. In 2003, Americans were absolutely wanting to kick ass and barely cared who. And Iraq was our victim. We wanted to make a point as a country.

April 14-16th 2003, by the way, corresponds with a couple of days after the taking of Baghdad and when US forces moved on Tikrit. You see how cynical that is? Americans love a winner. The war was launched on March 20th 2003.




As far as protest size, around the world the 2003 anti-war protests were the largest. In the US specifically, they were modest. The protests were mostly international. The Women's March in January was over twice the size of the largest Iraq War protest in the US. The Vietnam War protest and 1982 anti-nuclear protest in Central Park were a great deal larger too.

[Gib Lover]

Fair enough! I was wrong and misread the data

[Deleted]

You liberals love to twist things to fit your own agenda I give you that.

One could also say that people who don't complain about ISIS hiding behind civilians while denouncing America for casualties of ware are ok with ISIS hiding behind civilians for protection.

Civilian casualties aren't good. It sucks. It really does but people who live in reality understand that in war unintended casualties happen. That doesn't mean you support the casualties. Shit happens in wars.

Something needs to be done about ISIS. I don't see anyone else doing anything about it. The refugees from the middle east should be fighting for their homes. Not running away and letting isis get away with it.

Firstly, im not a liberal in any sense of the word, were im from the liberals are on the right side of the political spectrum.

Yea, you could try and spin it like that where it not that we hold western society to a higher standard then we do terrorist organisations. That is not "being okay with what they do" that is pointing out that a western nation should know better.

People who live in reality understand that this war was created by America. By creating even more civilian casualties you will only achieve another wave of terrorism to be born. Dropping bombs on people usually doesn't make them love you, it is quite the opposite in fact.

[Tierbook]

Firstly, im not a liberal in any sense of the word, were im from the liberals are on the right side of the political spectrum.

Yea, you could try and spin it like that where it not that we hold western society to a higher standard then we do terrorist organisations. That is not "being okay with what they do" that is pointing out that a western nation should know better.

People who live in reality understand that this war was created by America. By creating even more civilian casualties you will only achieve another wave of terrorism to be born. Dropping bombs on people usually doesn't make them love you, it is quite the opposite in fact.

Why on Earth would we care if they liked us or not..... generally we don't care what they do so long as they don't bomb us. But when they do deign to attack the US well we have to correct that decision making process post-haste now don't we. And we correct it by slaughtering those who thinks it was a good decision because when a group decides to kill a few thousand civilians you don't just get angry for a week and then nothing you have to take action. That's why after 9/11 the US has had only a handful of Islamic terrorist attacks that have killed in 15 years, while Europe has had several since the Paris attacks.

[the game]

Firstly, im not a liberal in any sense of the word, were im from the liberals are on the right side of the political spectrum.

Yea, you could try and spin it like that where it not that we hold western society to a higher standard then we do terrorist organisations. That is not "being okay with what they do" that is pointing out that a western nation should know better.

People who live in reality understand that this war was created by America. By creating even more civilian casualties you will only achieve another wave of terrorism to be born. Dropping bombs on people usually doesn't make them love you, it is quite the opposite in fact.

This war was started the moment pissed off muslims ran air planes into the world trade center and the pentagon. America wasn't the ones flying those planes.

Please refresh my memory how many civilians were killed when they ran the planes into the world trade center?

[Deleted]

This is trending on youtube, lulz the comment section..

[Skroe]

This is trending on youtube, lulz the comment section..

The American MOAB looks like it is straight out of the space age.

Russia's FOAB looks like it was made by two wielders in a garage out of recycled furnaces, spare tires and hoods from a 1984 Chevrolet Monte Carlo.

That's the most Russian thing I've seen in weeks.