I want to know what kind of cake was being eaten during the decision to launch this attack.
German Chocolate? Ice Cream? Angel Food?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Since this was supposed to destroy tunnels, can anyone think why they didn’t use one of the new big-ass bunker busters instead?
Moderator Note
Let’s keep all of the Trump comments out of this thread unless they directly pertain factually to the topic. This is GQ. Stick to the facts, please.
Was wondering the same thing. The MOAB is an air burst bomb.
I think the difference is the nature of the tunnels. Bunkers are deep tunnels intended to be able to resist conventional bombing. The IS tunnels targeted here were intended for mobility out of view. They would not be deep or hardened. But they were probably extensive. So you want a wide area air blast to collapse them rather than a single penetrator that takes out a specific deep bunker.
The critical difference between the MOAB and the MOP is that the AB versus P - air blast versus penetrator. You only need a penetrator for deep or hardened targets.
That still doesn’t help. Please spell out your questions. I think there’s interest in discussing this. We just don’t understand what you’re asking.
Cost - covered
Number of bombs left - covered
Reason for use vs other ordnance - covered
Anything else? I would think effectiveness might fall under lessons learned, but I haven’t seen anything yet. Perhaps others have.
We cannot allow a mine shaft gap!
Perhaps this has been asked and answered before, but… Is English your first language?
Leo, if you want your questions answered, it would behoove you to take more care in asking them. And when people ask you to clarify, explain what you want to know. This response is not very productive.
Quoting Wikipedia:* “The MOAB is not a penetrator weapon and is primarily intended for soft to medium surface targets covering extended areas and targets in a contained environment such as a deep canyon or within a cave system.”*
The bomb also has the secondary effect of impressing the fuck out the person(s) being bombed. It’s like the current C.I.C. is saying, “I’m gonna hit you with the biggest, baddest, nastiest shit we got in our arsenal, that we can conceivably use without incurring international sanctions.”
I’m picturing a nice big bowl of banana custard with nutmeg, perhaps with a bunch of maraschino cherries eaten straight out of the jar.
Bolding an edit mine
But of course making a habit of dropping nukes has consequences extending beyond giving you a warm inner glow of satisfaction.
I mean, if the US doesn’t fear of using the bomb, then why should those regimes you fear using the bomb not, you know, use the bomb on a “sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander” rationale?
This MAGA window of opportunity might be even narrower than we saw with PNAC.
I was curious to see how it compared to the British Grand Slam Bomb from WW2, since they have similar weights.
Grand Slam = 6.5 tons of TNT capability
MOAB - 11 tons of TNT capability
In comparison, the smallest nuclear weapon is around 1000 tons (1 kton) of TNT equivalent
Thus the MOAB is quite impressive, but still nothing compared to the nukes
Asked and answered, first, by myself, second, by others apparently well enough.
But you are right about my response. There are posts that are queries, and there are (as markn) some that are querulous. Being different, they deserve different answers, or none.
While not in service anymore…
Moderator Note
Weisshund, it is against the rules to change the text within the quote box when quoting someone (beyond normal editing rules). No warning issued, but don’t do this again.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
No you didn’t, actually. As pointed out, your “clarification” was anything but.
As I said, it would be helpful if you asked your questions in a clearer and more straightforward way. “Lessons learned?” is an extremely vague question for GQ.
But which regimes might those be? France & UK won’t do anything w/o our say-so, and Russia/China won’t dare nuke anyone we don’t hate already. As for North Korea, they’d probably be less emboldened, since a big part of their long-term strategy is pushing us to see how far we’re willing to retaliate against anything they do to us or our allies. With nukes on the field against ISIS, there’d be no illusions.
Something I haven’t seen anyone address but occasionally militaries will drop bombs that are either close to the end of their service life and it’s easier to use them than disarm them, or just to train crews on their use in combat use. This happened a lot during the Cold War as well as during the Iraq War where in some cases we’d dump more ordinance than was required on an isolated target just to kill two birds with one stone.