21,600lbs of American destruction. Are you paying attention Kim Jong Un? My guess is that was timed for today's NK celebration of all things that go boom. We have toys too you fat necked dictator.
The U.S. dropped a bomb containing 11 tons of explosives on an ISIS cave complex in Afghanistans Nangarhar province on the border with Pakistan on Thursday, a Pentagon spokesman confirmed to CBS News David Martin.
The bomb is officially called a GBU-43 or Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB), leading to its nickname as the mother of all bombs. The weapon is the largest non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. arsenal and has never before been used in combat. Link - ( New Window )
The U.S. dropped a bomb containing 11 tons of explosives on an ISIS cave complex in Afghanistans Nangarhar province on the border with Pakistan on Thursday, a Pentagon spokesman confirmed to CBS News David Martin.
The bomb is officially called a GBU-43 or Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB), leading to its nickname as the mother of all bombs. The weapon is the largest non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. arsenal and has never before been used in combat. Link - ( New Window )
This is the first time in combat. Previously, we relied on the Daisy Cutter as recently as Iraq. It is only 16K pounds of explosives.
I don't think the details are important these days. Everything's theater for particular intended audiences.
Reading the press reports, and they are saying that the bomb targeted "ISIS-K", which apparently is an ISIS affiliate operating in Pakistan, Afghanistan etc. Had never heard that term before, but here's a description
since the war never ended. A Green Beret special forces soldier was killed there yesterday while fighting Islamic extremists. Unfortunately this has become the forgotten war.
in the last week, we've had al qaeda cheering our missile strike in Syria, and now we've dropped a massive bomb on an ISIS group that's been fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan
don't mean to be political, just confess to being a little cynical - I sure hope someone is keeping track of everyone we're fighting in all these different places
in the last week, we've had al qaeda cheering our missile strike in Syria, and now we've dropped a massive bomb on an ISIS group that's been fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan
don't mean to be political, just confess to being a little cynical - I sure hope someone is keeping track of everyone we're fighting in all these different places
That's what I was driving at: the acts themselves are what's important here, not the specific strategic implications.
in the last week, we've had al qaeda cheering our missile strike in Syria, and now we've dropped a massive bomb on an ISIS group that's been fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan
don't mean to be political, just confess to being a little cynical - I sure hope someone is keeping track of everyone we're fighting in all these different places
There are hundreds of thousands of people, who are doing exactly that. The political and strategic issues of these are one thing but the actual on the ground and support functions of these conflicts are whole another thing.
in the last week, we've had al qaeda cheering our missile strike in Syria, and now we've dropped a massive bomb on an ISIS group that's been fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan
don't mean to be political, just confess to being a little cynical - I sure hope someone is keeping track of everyone we're fighting in all these different places
There are hundreds of thousands of people, who are doing exactly that. The political and strategic issues of these are one thing but the actual on the ground and support functions of these conflicts are whole another thing.
Oh I have no doubt, in no way did I mean to be critical - as someone who serves, I have the utmost respect for the job you and everyone involved in these operations does every day.
Moreso a general comment on how crazy the world is that we're fighting multiple sides who are also fighting each other in some of these places
I was actually agreeing with you that it's a crazy world, but thankfully we have pretty good group of people that do these kinds of things everyday. And many of them are ones I've trained over the years.
We just bombed Afghanistan? And other than the size
what else's new? We lost a soldier there last week too. Who new?
Yes, except for the fact that 'the weapon is the largest non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. arsenal and has never before been used in combat', it was a regular Thursday.
what else's new? We lost a soldier there last week too. Who new?
Yes, except for the fact that 'the weapon is the largest non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. arsenal and has never before been used in combat', it was a regular Thursday.
you get the sense nothing changed except someone wanted to try this weapon out for today's installment.
RE: RE: RE: We just bombed Afghanistan? And other than the size
what else's new? We lost a soldier there last week too. Who new?
Yes, except for the fact that 'the weapon is the largest non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. arsenal and has never before been used in combat', it was a regular Thursday.
you get the sense nothing changed except someone wanted to try this weapon out for today's installment.
So we dropped a bomb that we've never dropped before. Big deal. Based on the target and the intended effects of the bombing, there are actual military purposes for using this weapon system that aren't for some ulterior political purpose.
RE: Some of you guys are just too damn cynical about shit...
So we dropped a bomb that we've never dropped before. Big deal. Based on the target and the intended effects of the bombing, there are actual military purposes for using this weapon system that aren't for some ulterior political purpose.
They need to stop looking for excuses, it is getting old and stupid.
This bomb was planned during the Obama administration
Some of my best friends are bombs. they always tell me "you have the best bombs." It was the biggest landslide in history, of bombs... Did you par that hole?
Some of my best friends are bombs. they always tell me "you have the best bombs." It was the biggest landslide in history, of bombs... Did you par that hole?
I told "my" military, while eating the most beautiful chocolate cake, it was the most beautiful thing, I alone can fix this, but they told me ISIS was in Afghanistan, I saw it on Fox and Friends, who knew it would be so hard, they're everywhere,
what else's new? We lost a soldier there last week too. Who new?
Yes, except for the fact that 'the weapon is the largest non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. arsenal and has never before been used in combat', it was a regular Thursday.
you get the sense nothing changed except someone wanted to try this weapon out for today's installment.
No. I think this was a combination of opportunity and a resource that was available. And one wonders, at least I do, how history might have been different if this bomb had been available in late 2001- early 2002.
RE: RE: we have many bombs. they are the greatest bombs..
I told "my" military, while eating the most beautiful chocolate cake, it was the most beautiful thing, I alone can fix this, but they told me ISIS was in Afghanistan, I saw it on Fox and Friends, who knew it would be so hard, they're everywhere,
Leaving aside the rest of it, it's kind of hard to mock Trump for saying "my military" when Obama did that all the time as well.
You mean to tell me that were still at war in Afghanistan? The country we invaded almost 16 years ago after 9/11? asked Benjamin Martin, a financial advisor who, like most Americans, supports the troops 100% in their fight against the terrorists or whatever.
You mean to tell me that were still at war in Afghanistan? The country we invaded almost 16 years ago after 9/11? asked Benjamin Martin, a financial advisor who, like most Americans, supports the troops 100% in their fight against the terrorists or whatever.
Link - ( New Window )
There is truth to that - American military has been far more active than the public is aware or would likely support. Same goes for FMS stuff - recent outrage over sale of F-16's to Bahrain when we've been like Oprah with the availability of those and many other systems to other nations.
Nothing wrong with being skeptical of military force...
but be consistent in your skepticism. It should not ebb and flow based on who is in the White House, because frankly this President and the last two may have differed in tone but in execution they've done a lot of the same things.
but be consistent in your skepticism. It should not ebb and flow based on who is in the White House, because frankly this President and the last two may have differed in tone but in execution they've done a lot of the same things.
That's odd. In 2013 80 % of Republicans were opposed to action against Assad. Now 80 % supported it. What changed?
RE: Some of you guys are just too damn cynical about shit...
So we dropped a bomb that we've never dropped before. Big deal. Based on the target and the intended effects of the bombing, there are actual military purposes for using this weapon system that aren't for some ulterior political purpose.
Ron I hope you didn't take my post as cynical. I wasn't trying to be. The bomb fit the purpose, we've been bombing right along, so it's business as usual as far as I'm concerned. Use what you got Nuclear weapons aside obviously.
This kind of mentality is what's wrong with people. The cost of a munition or weapons system shouldn't be the determining factor of the effectiveness of an operation or an attack.
By this logic, the mere fact that we're still maintaining carrier battle groups (which cost hundreds of millions of dollars to operate annually) is the worst form of ROI.
And removing these 36 fighters from the battlespace may result in the saving of hundreds of civilian, Afghan security, and coalition force personnel. But hey, we should have higher body count, right?
RE: RE: Nothing wrong with being skeptical of military force...
but be consistent in your skepticism. It should not ebb and flow based on who is in the White House, because frankly this President and the last two may have differed in tone but in execution they've done a lot of the same things.
That's odd. In 2013 80 % of Republicans were opposed to action against Assad. Now 80 % supported it. What changed?
My admonition is not a partisan one. My feelings about the present occupant of the office have been made clear.
RE: RE: Some of you guys are just too damn cynical about shit...
So we dropped a bomb that we've never dropped before. Big deal. Based on the target and the intended effects of the bombing, there are actual military purposes for using this weapon system that aren't for some ulterior political purpose.
Ron I hope you didn't take my post as cynical. I wasn't trying to be. The bomb fit the purpose, we've been bombing right along, so it's business as usual as far as I'm concerned. Use what you got Nuclear weapons aside obviously.
It wasn't your comment I was responding to as much as people turning this into some political nonsense about news cycles, etc. Sorry if it came off as me responding to you.
This kind of mentality is what's wrong with people. The cost of a munition or weapons system shouldn't be the determining factor of the effectiveness of an operation or an attack.
By this logic, the mere fact that we're still maintaining carrier battle groups (which cost hundreds of millions of dollars to operate annually) is the worst form of ROI.
And removing these 36 fighters from the battlespace may result in the saving of hundreds of civilian, Afghan security, and coalition force personnel. But hey, we should have higher body count, right?
Plus it wasn't just to kill some Isis fighters, it was to destroy the tunnel networks. And send a message.
RE: RE: Nothing wrong with being skeptical of military force...
but be consistent in your skepticism. It should not ebb and flow based on who is in the White House, because frankly this President and the last two may have differed in tone but in execution they've done a lot of the same things.
That's odd. In 2013 80 % of Republicans were opposed to action against Assad. Now 80 % supported it. What changed?
You're trying really hard to get this thread nuked with your political agenda. We get it. Republicans all suck and Democrats are awesome. There, we got it out of the way.
Sorry I don't agree that this was a responsible use of our
resources. When everyday, we hear or cuts to things like PBS, services for the poor and impoverished, women's services, environmental protections, education, the list goes on and on, because certain individuals feel that they are not "getting results," for what we pay for. Then you turn around and spend 16 MILLION on a single bomb to kill 36 fighters. Everytime you hear someone ask "where is the money going to come from?" in regards to funding services that actually help the American people, its hard not to laugh when they have no problem spending absurd amounts of money on military ordinance.
Won't ISIS get more recruiting out of that bomb being dropped to replace the 36 they just lost?
They can try to get more recruits, but ISKP isn't much liked in the country already, so getting new recruits isn't nearly as easy as it may be for groups like the Taliban.
RE: Sorry I don't agree that this was a responsible use of our
resources. When everyday, we hear or cuts to things like PBS, services for the poor and impoverished, women's services, environmental protections, education, the list goes on and on, because certain individuals feel that they are not "getting results," for what we pay for. Then you turn around and spend 16 MILLION on a single bomb to kill 36 fighters. Everytime you hear someone ask "where is the money going to come from?" in regards to funding services that actually help the American people, its hard not to laugh when they have no problem spending absurd amounts of money on military ordinance.
Eh...there is merit to criticizing the military industrial complex since we all know that there are abundant amount of issues. But to rail against a military operations use of an already developed weapon system seems to miss the point of military operations and their purpose.
Fighting wars is expensive, especially when you are the most sophisticated military in the world. Would the world be better if we didn't have conflicts and wars? Of course, but we do. And it's best to ensure your military is supplied with the best weapons and equipment available. The whole political nature of your gripe is duly noted, but it's throwing your ire in the wrong direction.
RE: Sorry I don't agree that this was a responsible use of our
resources. When everyday, we hear or cuts to things like PBS, services for the poor and impoverished, women's services, environmental protections, education, the list goes on and on, because certain individuals feel that they are not "getting results," for what we pay for. Then you turn around and spend 16 MILLION on a single bomb to kill 36 fighters. Everytime you hear someone ask "where is the money going to come from?" in regards to funding services that actually help the American people, its hard not to laugh when they have no problem spending absurd amounts of money on military ordinance.
I'll ignore the politcal view, but I seriously doubt 10 tons of explosives and a couple tons of iron costs 18 times as much as a Tomahawk cruise missile. No cost for guidance, no cost for a motor and fuel...
This is a dumb bomb, a very big dumb bomb, but still a dumb bomb. All it had was an altimeter detonator.
That number has to include the cost of development.
Won't ISIS get more recruiting out of that bomb being dropped to replace the 36 they just lost?
It is impossible to play this guessing game. But the extension of this argument is that killing terrorists and their ilk just makes more terrorists. It is inherently defeatist.
I also think there is a lot more going on in the decision be be ISIS or AQ etc than just "well that attack happened". I mean, what is the thought process? "I was going to run a shop when death from above was just in small 1000-2000 lbs bombs, but now that it is by 10 ton bombs, well sign me up!"
Attacks that "make more terrorists" are probably the erroneous attacks. The ones with civilian deaths and damage to the property of the innocent.
RE: RE: Sorry I don't agree that this was a responsible use of our
resources. When everyday, we hear or cuts to things like PBS, services for the poor and impoverished, women's services, environmental protections, education, the list goes on and on, because certain individuals feel that they are not "getting results," for what we pay for. Then you turn around and spend 16 MILLION on a single bomb to kill 36 fighters. Everytime you hear someone ask "where is the money going to come from?" in regards to funding services that actually help the American people, its hard not to laugh when they have no problem spending absurd amounts of money on military ordinance.
I'll ignore the politcal view, but I seriously doubt 10 tons of explosives and a couple tons of iron costs 18 times as much as a Tomahawk cruise missile. No cost for guidance, no cost for a motor and fuel...
This is a dumb bomb, a very big dumb bomb, but still a dumb bomb. All it had was an altimeter detonator.
That number has to include the cost of development.
This is correct. The number being reported is BS. The military has no idea what a marginal MOAB costs because the military manufactures them, and costs arent tracked like that for self-made ordinance. The $300+ million program cost includes the penetrator bomb, which is similarly named but a more sophisticated, smaller weapon.
Although I wouldnt assume that a 20k lbs bomb is the same prices as 10 2k lbs bombs. The bigger bomb is likely more complicated to manufacture and suffers from lack of economy of scale.
I think it is fair to ask whether we used this massive bomb when multiple smaller bombs would suffice. I have seen articles suggesting that a load of smaller bombs out of a B52 is basically superior. Not sure if that is right.
people will undoubtedly suffer. If a foreign policy fails, especially WRT Syria and North Korea, the fallout could be catastrophic, for our population, for our servicemembers, and potentially for people in other parts of the world. It'd be nice if we could view these things through the lens of whether these decisions are good or bad rather than whether we like the man at the top influencing the policy.
For instance, whether what is going on in and around NK right now is good policy or bad, the potential implications of it should something go awry are terrifying, especially for the people of Seoul and its environs. I'm much more interested in that than whether we dropped one 21,000 lb bomb or 21 thousand-pound bombs on a sparsely populated part of Afghanistan and the Seventh Century cretins who are gathering there.
RE: Previous administration was not cutting everything
that the current on is in the name of fiscal responsibility.
Get off it, nobody cares and your attempts to provoke are unappreciated because you are wrong. The two are mutually exclusive.
Not provoking anything. If the situations were the same, you would have heard a lot of people speaking up about the drone war and such. The situations are completely different though, so for you to act like people having an issue with this is surprising is laughable. And mutually exclusive? Seriously? It is inherently political whether you like to admit it or not.
RE: RE: RE: Previous administration was not cutting everything
that the current on is in the name of fiscal responsibility.
Get off it, nobody cares and your attempts to provoke are unappreciated because you are wrong. The two are mutually exclusive.
Not provoking anything. If the situations were the same, you would have heard a lot of people speaking up about the drone war and such. The situations are completely different though, so for you to act like people having an issue with this is surprising is laughable. And mutually exclusive? Seriously? It is inherently political whether you like to admit it or not.
Here we go. I don't know why I should do this.
It's all foreign policy related and all the big guns from both sides of the Isle are pretty much in step.
If you take the blinders off. 1 started this path, actually way before that but an easy reference, 2 followed it, and 3 is going down the same path.
If you take the rose colored partisan glasses off, it's not hard to figure out or you not paying attention.
BREAKING: U.S. drops largest non-nuclear bomb in arsenal against ISIS fighters in Afghanistan, Pentagon spokesman says.
Will be signed by Monday
Quote:
Hankins.
Will be signed by Monday
Cryptic tweet
Picture of eraser
Poston sucks
He was the bomb that was dropped.
What side are you on? If you are an insider for the Giants then how could you possibly know that Indy laughed at him?
That one bomb weighed 21,600 lbs and is the largest non-nuclear bomb on earth.
Quote:
Hankins.
He was the bomb that was dropped.
Then it only has potential to do damage.
Quote:
...
That one bomb weighed 21,600 lbs and is the largest non-nuclear bomb on earth.
Also the first time it's ever been used.
Quote:
Indy laughed at him. For some reason he is still holding on to the bum.
What side are you on? If you are an insider for the Giants then how could you possibly know that Indy laughed at him?
The side of duping 80% of BBI.
The bomb is officially called a GBU-43 or Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB), leading to its nickname as the mother of all bombs. The weapon is the largest non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. arsenal and has never before been used in combat.
Link - ( New Window )
The bomb is officially called a GBU-43 or Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB), leading to its nickname as the mother of all bombs. The weapon is the largest non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. arsenal and has never before been used in combat. Link - ( New Window )
This is the first time in combat. Previously, we relied on the Daisy Cutter as recently as Iraq. It is only 16K pounds of explosives.
MOAB test - ( New Window )
A big signing within 24 hours? Unless it's Adrian Peterson, there's no one out there that would be considered a "big signing".
I don't think the details are important these days. Everything's theater for particular intended audiences.
Quote:
A big signing within 24 hours? Unless it's Adrian Peterson, there's no one out there that would be considered a "big signing".
TBF, Slade didn't say "big"
Quote:
In comment 13426842 shelovesnycsports said:
Quote:
Hankins.
He was the bomb that was dropped.
Then it only has potential to do damage.
I understand that, despite its massive weight and destructive potential, it wasn't able to penetrate the target.
Quote:
In comment 13427010 Slade said:
Quote:
A big signing within 24 hours? Unless it's Adrian Peterson, there's no one out there that would be considered a "big signing".
TBF, Slade didn't say "big"
What do you mean? Look at his 1:52
And we watched the strike from a Pred feed. Massive is an understatement.
Quote:
In comment 13427010 Slade said:
Quote:
A big signing within 24 hours? Unless it's Adrian Peterson, there's no one out there that would be considered a "big signing".
TBF, Slade didn't say "big"
He didn't?
Slade : 1:52 pm : link : reply
Big signing within 24... clock starts now...
Quote:
I thought that was Al Queda/Taliban territory.
I don't think the details are important these days. Everything's theater for particular intended audiences.
Reading the press reports, and they are saying that the bomb targeted "ISIS-K", which apparently is an ISIS affiliate operating in Pakistan, Afghanistan etc. Had never heard that term before, but here's a description
Link - ( New Window )
don't mean to be political, just confess to being a little cynical - I sure hope someone is keeping track of everyone we're fighting in all these different places
don't mean to be political, just confess to being a little cynical - I sure hope someone is keeping track of everyone we're fighting in all these different places
That's what I was driving at: the acts themselves are what's important here, not the specific strategic implications.
I think it was 30k bombs total, done mostly with drones
I think it was 30k bombs total, done mostly with drones
Somalia, Yemen...
don't mean to be political, just confess to being a little cynical - I sure hope someone is keeping track of everyone we're fighting in all these different places
There are hundreds of thousands of people, who are doing exactly that. The political and strategic issues of these are one thing but the actual on the ground and support functions of these conflicts are whole another thing.
Quote:
in the last week, we've had al qaeda cheering our missile strike in Syria, and now we've dropped a massive bomb on an ISIS group that's been fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan
don't mean to be political, just confess to being a little cynical - I sure hope someone is keeping track of everyone we're fighting in all these different places
There are hundreds of thousands of people, who are doing exactly that. The political and strategic issues of these are one thing but the actual on the ground and support functions of these conflicts are whole another thing.
Oh I have no doubt, in no way did I mean to be critical - as someone who serves, I have the utmost respect for the job you and everyone involved in these operations does every day.
Moreso a general comment on how crazy the world is that we're fighting multiple sides who are also fighting each other in some of these places
Yes, except for the fact that 'the weapon is the largest non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. arsenal and has never before been used in combat', it was a regular Thursday.
I think it was 30k bombs total, done mostly with drones
Gotta let the big dog eat.
Quote:
what else's new? We lost a soldier there last week too. Who new?
Yes, except for the fact that 'the weapon is the largest non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. arsenal and has never before been used in combat', it was a regular Thursday.
you get the sense nothing changed except someone wanted to try this weapon out for today's installment.
Quote:
In comment 13427544 Blue21 said:
Quote:
what else's new? We lost a soldier there last week too. Who new?
Yes, except for the fact that 'the weapon is the largest non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. arsenal and has never before been used in combat', it was a regular Thursday.
you get the sense nothing changed except someone wanted to try this weapon out for today's installment.
exactly
They need to stop looking for excuses, it is getting old and stupid.
killed 36 militants apparently
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39598046 - ( New Window )
I told "my" military, while eating the most beautiful chocolate cake, it was the most beautiful thing, I alone can fix this, but they told me ISIS was in Afghanistan, I saw it on Fox and Friends, who knew it would be so hard, they're everywhere,
Quote:
In comment 13427544 Blue21 said:
Quote:
what else's new? We lost a soldier there last week too. Who new?
Yes, except for the fact that 'the weapon is the largest non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. arsenal and has never before been used in combat', it was a regular Thursday.
you get the sense nothing changed except someone wanted to try this weapon out for today's installment.
No. I think this was a combination of opportunity and a resource that was available. And one wonders, at least I do, how history might have been different if this bomb had been available in late 2001- early 2002.
Leaving aside the rest of it, it's kind of hard to mock Trump for saying "my military" when Obama did that all the time as well.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
You mean to tell me that were still at war in Afghanistan? The country we invaded almost 16 years ago after 9/11? asked Benjamin Martin, a financial advisor who, like most Americans, supports the troops 100% in their fight against the terrorists or whatever.
Link - ( New Window )
That's odd. In 2013 80 % of Republicans were opposed to action against Assad. Now 80 % supported it. What changed?
Ron I hope you didn't take my post as cynical. I wasn't trying to be. The bomb fit the purpose, we've been bombing right along, so it's business as usual as far as I'm concerned. Use what you got Nuclear weapons aside obviously.
This kind of mentality is what's wrong with people. The cost of a munition or weapons system shouldn't be the determining factor of the effectiveness of an operation or an attack.
By this logic, the mere fact that we're still maintaining carrier battle groups (which cost hundreds of millions of dollars to operate annually) is the worst form of ROI.
And removing these 36 fighters from the battlespace may result in the saving of hundreds of civilian, Afghan security, and coalition force personnel. But hey, we should have higher body count, right?
Quote:
but be consistent in your skepticism. It should not ebb and flow based on who is in the White House, because frankly this President and the last two may have differed in tone but in execution they've done a lot of the same things.
That's odd. In 2013 80 % of Republicans were opposed to action against Assad. Now 80 % supported it. What changed?
My admonition is not a partisan one. My feelings about the present occupant of the office have been made clear.
Quote:
So we dropped a bomb that we've never dropped before. Big deal. Based on the target and the intended effects of the bombing, there are actual military purposes for using this weapon system that aren't for some ulterior political purpose.
Ron I hope you didn't take my post as cynical. I wasn't trying to be. The bomb fit the purpose, we've been bombing right along, so it's business as usual as far as I'm concerned. Use what you got Nuclear weapons aside obviously.
It wasn't your comment I was responding to as much as people turning this into some political nonsense about news cycles, etc. Sorry if it came off as me responding to you.
Quote:
we killed 36 fighters. Lol just have to laugh...
This kind of mentality is what's wrong with people. The cost of a munition or weapons system shouldn't be the determining factor of the effectiveness of an operation or an attack.
By this logic, the mere fact that we're still maintaining carrier battle groups (which cost hundreds of millions of dollars to operate annually) is the worst form of ROI.
And removing these 36 fighters from the battlespace may result in the saving of hundreds of civilian, Afghan security, and coalition force personnel. But hey, we should have higher body count, right?
Plus it wasn't just to kill some Isis fighters, it was to destroy the tunnel networks. And send a message.
Quote:
but be consistent in your skepticism. It should not ebb and flow based on who is in the White House, because frankly this President and the last two may have differed in tone but in execution they've done a lot of the same things.
That's odd. In 2013 80 % of Republicans were opposed to action against Assad. Now 80 % supported it. What changed?
You're trying really hard to get this thread nuked with your political agenda. We get it. Republicans all suck and Democrats are awesome. There, we got it out of the way.
That would be the mantra. But WRATGAS, I believe their recruiting is way down since they have been getting their asses kicked.
They can try to get more recruits, but ISKP isn't much liked in the country already, so getting new recruits isn't nearly as easy as it may be for groups like the Taliban.
Eh...there is merit to criticizing the military industrial complex since we all know that there are abundant amount of issues. But to rail against a military operations use of an already developed weapon system seems to miss the point of military operations and their purpose.
Fighting wars is expensive, especially when you are the most sophisticated military in the world. Would the world be better if we didn't have conflicts and wars? Of course, but we do. And it's best to ensure your military is supplied with the best weapons and equipment available. The whole political nature of your gripe is duly noted, but it's throwing your ire in the wrong direction.
I'll ignore the politcal view, but I seriously doubt 10 tons of explosives and a couple tons of iron costs 18 times as much as a Tomahawk cruise missile. No cost for guidance, no cost for a motor and fuel...
This is a dumb bomb, a very big dumb bomb, but still a dumb bomb. All it had was an altimeter detonator.
That number has to include the cost of development.
It is impossible to play this guessing game. But the extension of this argument is that killing terrorists and their ilk just makes more terrorists. It is inherently defeatist.
I also think there is a lot more going on in the decision be be ISIS or AQ etc than just "well that attack happened". I mean, what is the thought process? "I was going to run a shop when death from above was just in small 1000-2000 lbs bombs, but now that it is by 10 ton bombs, well sign me up!"
Attacks that "make more terrorists" are probably the erroneous attacks. The ones with civilian deaths and damage to the property of the innocent.
Quote:
resources. When everyday, we hear or cuts to things like PBS, services for the poor and impoverished, women's services, environmental protections, education, the list goes on and on, because certain individuals feel that they are not "getting results," for what we pay for. Then you turn around and spend 16 MILLION on a single bomb to kill 36 fighters. Everytime you hear someone ask "where is the money going to come from?" in regards to funding services that actually help the American people, its hard not to laugh when they have no problem spending absurd amounts of money on military ordinance.
I'll ignore the politcal view, but I seriously doubt 10 tons of explosives and a couple tons of iron costs 18 times as much as a Tomahawk cruise missile. No cost for guidance, no cost for a motor and fuel...
This is a dumb bomb, a very big dumb bomb, but still a dumb bomb. All it had was an altimeter detonator.
That number has to include the cost of development.
This is correct. The number being reported is BS. The military has no idea what a marginal MOAB costs because the military manufactures them, and costs arent tracked like that for self-made ordinance. The $300+ million program cost includes the penetrator bomb, which is similarly named but a more sophisticated, smaller weapon.
Although I wouldnt assume that a 20k lbs bomb is the same prices as 10 2k lbs bombs. The bigger bomb is likely more complicated to manufacture and suffers from lack of economy of scale.
I think it is fair to ask whether we used this massive bomb when multiple smaller bombs would suffice. I have seen articles suggesting that a load of smaller bombs out of a B52 is basically superior. Not sure if that is right.
OK, took a minute but I laughed ...
But Trump dropping one big one gets the press. Nobody really notices anything else.
We're living in a bizarre Orwell novel.
For instance, whether what is going on in and around NK right now is good policy or bad, the potential implications of it should something go awry are terrifying, especially for the people of Seoul and its environs. I'm much more interested in that than whether we dropped one 21,000 lb bomb or 21 thousand-pound bombs on a sparsely populated part of Afghanistan and the Seventh Century cretins who are gathering there.
Get off it, nobody cares and your attempts to provoke are unappreciated because you are wrong. The two are mutually exclusive.
Quote:
that the current on is in the name of fiscal responsibility.
Get off it, nobody cares and your attempts to provoke are unappreciated because you are wrong. The two are mutually exclusive.
Not provoking anything. If the situations were the same, you would have heard a lot of people speaking up about the drone war and such. The situations are completely different though, so for you to act like people having an issue with this is surprising is laughable. And mutually exclusive? Seriously? It is inherently political whether you like to admit it or not.
Quote:
In comment 13428740 732NYG said:
Quote:
that the current on is in the name of fiscal responsibility.
Get off it, nobody cares and your attempts to provoke are unappreciated because you are wrong. The two are mutually exclusive.
Not provoking anything. If the situations were the same, you would have heard a lot of people speaking up about the drone war and such. The situations are completely different though, so for you to act like people having an issue with this is surprising is laughable. And mutually exclusive? Seriously? It is inherently political whether you like to admit it or not.
Here we go. I don't know why I should do this.
It's all foreign policy related and all the big guns from both sides of the Isle are pretty much in step.
If you take the blinders off. 1 started this path, actually way before that but an easy reference, 2 followed it, and 3 is going down the same path.
If you take the rose colored partisan glasses off, it's not hard to figure out or you not paying attention.
It's a big world out there.