Pentagon: US dropped largest non-nuclear bomb in Afghanistan

Well we can concretely say that it cleared out a network of tunnels that were used by ISIS, something that would be incredibly dangerous to do with ground troops and practically impossible to do with drone strikes.

 

Well both, its ~21,000 lbs and 30 ft long. 21,000 lbs is heavy....

Well that and the Hercules C-130 it was designed to be pushed out of....

This bomb was designed to be pushed out of a moving airplane.

LOL. I didn't realize the Navy and Airforce didn't coordinate anything....

My point was that these don't have the same versatility as a many other types of strikes. ISIS doesn't the type of anti aircraft capabilities to where flying a huge Hercules c-130 over their "airpsapce" would be an issue like Russia or China or nations with modern militaries.

Afraid not, you should read up on the MOAB. I'm just stating the facts.

 

There are hundreds of tunnel and cave systems in Afghanistan that Al Queda and now ISIS use when they lose territory strong holds. Do we think it's a great use of military assets to continue to level whole mountain ranges as a way to defeat ISIS and it's ideology and recruitment efforts?

This was the definition of the Ted Cruz campaign mission to just "Carpet Bomb" these parts of the Middle East and pay little attention to collateral damage. The use of the MOAB as a mission strategy seems to signal a shift towards the Ted Cruz strategy and a significant shift in the mission previously noted. It's especially evident since we haven't been told that this was an outpost with high ranking officials that required a more desperate approach.

I'm not arguing for or against the bombing but i want to be clear on what the mission and the strategy is and then if it was successful lastly. If there has been a shift towards the Ted Cruz strategy I guess you could say it's a success if that's our approach. If it's the Donald Trump policy who the F knows. I can't for the life of me wrap my head around what the mission is and how we are going about expending assets to get that accomplished.

(Here's where my opinion comes in... i think for 36 ISIS soldiers I think it's an inefficient use of assets. If you take that 300 million or whatever and pump redirect that money toward cyber efforts to curb recruitment I think you could potentially keep hundred if not more from being radicalized and actually protect us here from the biggest threat of lone wolfs radicalized online... but that's just me. I also know you have to also fight them physically as well but I do question if it's an adequate use of a large amount of assets for a small number of targets)

 

The mountain range wasn't "leveled", but yeah, it was a pretty good use of military assets.....in fact, there's not many better uses for a MOAB. That's pretty much what it was designed for. IMO it's certainly a better use of assets than to keep pecking at the surface with drone strikes in those mountains and MUCH better than sacrificing dozens of people trying to clear them out on foot.

The geography of Afghanistan has always been their secret weapon throughout history, the MOAB for the most part takes that advantage away from them.

 

Did you literally think that I meant one bomb (albeit a big bomb) actually leveled an entire mountain range to the point where the mountains were flattened or are you looking for a point of contention?

I'm giving you a fair chance to explain your side fairly without arguing semantics and you find a way to try and make any conversation a verbal knife fight. If you are trying to start a contentious entry point in a debate please stop.

I just want to make sure Trump isn't getting us in another multi trillion dollar war without a well thought out mission, and stated purpose. The whole "I don't like to say my tactics publicly" nonsense is just a cop out for not having a well thought out plan. And at the end of the day it's a war we the tax payers are paying for. It's not a waste of time to question where are money is spent and how it's prioritized.

 

No I get that you were probably exaggerating for effect, but that type of rhetoric often leads to ridiculous narratives when left alone. I was just pointing out that we aren't actually leveling mountain ranges before an idiot 3rd party picks up on that and makes an ass out of themselves.

He's not getting us into anything, we were never not in it. Also, the stated purpose is to wipe out ISIS. One of the few things I like about Trump is that he picked someone really good to handle these things (Mattis) and as such, I have faith that his military decisions will be infinitely superior to that of the previous administration. We likely don't have anywhere near the problem with ISIS if that administration took a similar approach.

Also, if we're worried about cost, we should be happy that they decided to use a MOAB in that situation rather than continuing ineffective drone strikes on the outside of the tunnel system. 1 MOAB is more effective at clearing out those tunnel systems than 100 drone strikes on the outside.

Now if you want to change the conversation to one where we are discussing if we should even fight ISIS to begin with or that we should just let them take whatever territory they want then we can have it. IMO I think crushing ISIS is the right thing to do, but there are many arguments I'd listen to against that idea. In fact, most of my fellow Libertarians are against it because they don't believe in the US paying to solve other people's problems.

 

GPS is GPS, coordinate-wise. The problem has always been targeting the proper coordinates.

The bombs go where you tell them to, in short.

 

And this bombs requires you to essentially push it out of moving airplane. There's a reason why this bomb hasn't been used until now, this bomb made a big boom and it was about the message it sent. We have bunker busting bombs that are designed specifically for hitting caves and tunnels that are actually laser guided with GPS.

This bomb did what it intended to do but my point is that we have other munitions that are more effective and more specialized.

 

We have strike jets equipped with bunker busting missiles. Drone strikes are meant to be more surgical while bunker busting missiles are supposed to penetrate hardened tunnels/bunkers. The MOAB was just for show and did its job against poorly equipped terrorists with no AA capabilites and wouldn't be something we would use against Iran or NK hardened facilities because a C-130 plane that carries the MOAB would be shot down.

 

Now the liberals are upset that we're bombing ISIS. Just LOL at their idiocy.

 

Unless I'm totally mistaken, which I know would be a shock, this bomb is also very much GPS/satellite guided. It's not just a great big heavy thing that gets dumped off the back of a truck.

 

It's also there to kill "soft targets" and scare the hell out of the people. They used the similar/smaller types in Iraq on their infantry The radio intercepts led the military to decide they wanted more and bigger.

 

The mop is 30k pounds and the b2 carries two of them . The problem is it is long.

Who cares about versatility ? Right tool for the job. This was the situation. If you are going against reinforced bunkers and a n integrated air defense go with the mop. Arguing a Manning strike isn't as accurate as a drone is r****ded. They dropped that sucker in there perfect. You not only have no point, you have completely misunderstood the facts.

 

I agree, but at least with Hillary as president, she would be able to appoint one, maybe two Supreme Court justices that the GOP would not be able to overturn this time. She also wouldn't be demonizing undocumented and refugees. For brown people, she would've been a breath of fresh air over what we have right now.

 

Not enough brown people or women voted for her.

Who said it's only up for the white males to vote?

With the joke of political inaction going on today, I doubt the Dems will retake any majority in '18.
Meaning...
NO oversight
NO independent panels
NO roadblocks for judicial appointments

The latter means less chances for his crazy decrees to be overturned in the federal circuits.

At least you get a refund back. Yay!

 

You are correct, it has wings and grid fins for guidance on the way down. Any attempt to make it sound like it's just something chucked out of the back of a C-130 with no clue where it will hit is evidence that someone doesn't know what they are talking about.

 

Just checking in to see what the latest is on the mini-nukes.

 

The bomb might have helped Trump's poll numbers and been a hit with the usual suspects on the bbs, but not so popular in Afghanistan.
******
KABUL, Afghanistan — The American military’s use of the most powerful conventional bomb in its arsenal on an Islamic State cave complex in Afghanistan has stirred up political trouble for the Afghan government, as former President Hamid Karzai on Saturday called his successor “a traitor” and declared that he wanted the Americans gone from the country.

In an interview with The New York Times, hours after he said he intended to work toward “ousting the U.S.,” a fuming Mr. Karzai said there was no justification for the United States to drop the powerful bomb in Afghanistan

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/15/world/asia/hamid-karzai-afghanistan-us-bombing.html?_r=0

 

Trump will tell that wussy Karzai to STFU in twitter any moment now, we can drop anything we want anywhere to fight terrorism.


That is why fighting terrorism is hard, the locals can turn against you any moment.

 

I'm not sure why anyone would care what Afghanistan thinks about anything. If they were worth a damn, we wouldn't have to be over there in the first place.