Pentagon: US dropped largest non-nuclear bomb in Afghanistan

http://www.businessinsider.com/real-cost-of-moab-mother-of-all-bombs-170-000-2017-4

$170,000 libs...not 314 million or 16 million...

 

Just reading the article it doesn't specify who in the Air Force said it cost $170,000. You're more or less taking that dude's article as factual without any source.

"My website spoke with the Air Force and they said it's $170,000. Take that lamestream media!"

I mean it could be. I'd just like to know who in the Air Force told businessinsider that information. Wouldn't you? FWIW I don't care about the cost. It seems like a small thing to nitpick over.

 

But some on this board had no issue with trolling the administration for $16 million bomb?? The cost shouldnt even be an issue, considering the bomb was made in 2003...and wasnt used till now. So the cost for this weapon was from 2003...The only cost the Trump admin had to deal with was transport and use for the weapon...

 

I don't get why the cost is even an issue? The bomb was either effective or it wasn't. It either achieved its mission or it didn't. It either killed a bunch of terrorist or it didn't. It either killed innoncent civilians or it didn't. It either had an impact on the dictators who watched it or it didn't.

Those are the only things that matter.

 

It clearly had an impact to the left...Cost became an issue for people to find anything to discredit an action taken by this administration.

 

Not having cable news or anything, outside of this board I really think it's a small minority of people that are really concerned over costs of this military action. Could money have been better spent elsewhere? Sure. Why not. It's still small potatoes to b**** over.

 

....maybe for the aluminum encasing, hard to believe honestly.

 

it was a great decision, stop being a ****ing idiot with your "BUT BUT THE LEFT!!" crap. It makes you sound un-american as hell.

 

Deckard: You have yet another opportunity to continue your obsession with Hillary Clinton, who would merely be about 10,000 times better for the issues you allegedly care about than the fool in the White House and his Far-Right Republican Party, who are as obsessed as you, but with other things now. They've put Hillary Clinton in the rear view mirror.


They've moved on to new, more enticing obsessions. Like destroying the social programs that protect the poor in this country, pissing on women's rights, giving away billions to their billionaire supporters, giving away more billions to the insurance companies, hell, giving the Lead Fool in the White House his own tax breaks, although how can one tell? He has yet to produce his income tax returns. I could make a long list, if I had an interest in repeating what I've posted here many times

We are talking abut Hillary's hawkishness on a foreign policy thread wrt to war, which you seem to be 100% down with and not whether she is better on social programs which I certainly agree with. . BTW you have been around long enough to perhaps have some inkling of what Vietnam War and Cold War spending had on social spending. You know guns vs butter at least be with Dwight Eisenhauer.


. Mr. trump and his merry fools from the White working class, seduced by propaganda spewed by the Alt-Right, by Vladimir Putin for his own interests with help from his tool, WikiLeaks, and every other mad extremist source that tells them that their troubles will be over if they will just believe. So they do, and truth be damned. Have fun, glynch. When things get bad enough in America, you can always move to your paradise on Earth, Venezuela

Despite your generally moderate persona on the bbs you tend to get extremely nasty if I or any Democrat is less hawkish than you, Hillary or say ABC News. .

I would like you to finally admit if possible that Hillary did not primarily lose due to Bernie Bros and Russia. This is not just personal as I think the Democrats are in trouble if they cannot realize that a few tweaks to their milk toast moderation which generally appeals to the comfortable and is careful crafted to not offend large wealthy and corporate donors is not inspiring enough to win back the Presidency, the Congress and reclaim at least half or more of the State Governments.

 

No, continuing drone strikes would be the alternative.

 

Lol at your virtue signaling when so many of your posts are ripping on conservatives on this forum...

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/afghan-official-massive-us-bomb-dead-toll-rise-055344229.html

seems more of these scum were annihilated...by a MOAB.

 

It is an aluminum can with a GPS and thousands of pounds of explosive. A Tomahawk is basically a drone with a jet engine, much more sophisticated.

Suggesting an aluminum can cost millions (or hundreds of millions) more is sadly par for the course of BS people typed after they heard about this strike.

 

That's great, but drone strikes have been more effective. This bomb was more of a message to ISIS and NK.

It seems civilian deaths have been on the rise under this new administration, which also sends a message.

 

Yeah I'm sure that number will change even again. The beauty of the MOAB is that it completely wreaks havoc on tunnel systems which is exactly why it was a good idea to use it to hit targets you wouldn't be able to get with any other method. Normal airstrikes or drone strikes wouldn't do a lot against people deep within caves so your options would be to send in ground troops to take heavy casualties, or you kill them all with one bomb.

 

Those were killed to scare NK I assume,it doesn't matter who they were actually...

I was thinking of this:


If you were a 30 years old Afghani who lived there in the 60s.
Then had a war against the Soviet (social justice) for a decade
Another decade of civil war
Another decade of Taliban (allegedly adherence to Islam)
And a 2 decades of American Democracy bla bla...
Then at the age of 70-80s ,you would be eager to be blown up by MOAB to end those social experiments

 

Other than scale, how is a GPS-guided bomb dropped from a robot plane any different than a GPS-guided bomb dropped from a manned plane?

 

Well the MOAB is so heavy it can only be dropped by the Hercule C-130 which is a very large manned aircraft with no stealth capabilities or advanced maneuvering capabilities. If I'm not mistaken these planes can't be launched from an aircraft carrier which wouldn't make it very useful over areas with strong AA defenses. The MOAB had to essentially be pushed off the C-130, not launched so I'm not sure how accurate it would be compared to a drone strike but I would assume much less.

 

not heavy, long

no stealth capabilities
you mean like a predator/reaper drone

advanced maneuvering capabilities
lol wtf

these planes can't be launched from an aircraft carrier
they are part of the air force, not the navy so.......


but I would assume much less
like most everything else you assume in this post, you would assume wrong

 

There certainly is way too much arguing back and forth about semantics while it seems nobody is talking about the point of it all and if it was successful in accomplishing the mission.

So let's talk about that mission. 10 days after the air strike and what can we say concretely that it accomplished?

Other than apparently the media folks think he's now officially the President.

However there is a seperate argument we can have about the cost of war in general and contrast with Trumps outlandish budget proposal. All the while everyday he's solidifying his place in history as the most expensive President ever for the American tax payer while he personally enriches himself more than any other President in history.

With all that being said the MOAB bomb and the Tomahawk bomb costs are pretty silly to argue when there is a larger seperate argument to be had. I think we need to focus that argument on whether it was effective in the Grand scheme of the mission.