I’m pretty underwhelmed by the recent video footage.
I can’t imagine any despot shaking in his boots from that.
I’m sure there was extensive damage inside the caves. Hopefully army scouts will film the damage close up and we can see if the bomb accomplished it’s objective.
Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
And it very well could be the Republican administration needed a fall guy to impress the Little Guy in North Korea. So the pretext for using MOAB against a handful of ISIS was a finger wag to NK, “You really want to go there?”
I love how the press briefings indicate how cautious and careful we were to ensure no civilian casualties…with the mother of all bombs…
Very few military explosions are as spectacular as Hollywood explosions.
Well it was dropped in the middle of no where.
As far as we’re aware…and you probably got what I meant…in reference to “precision drone strikes”, “GPS guided munitions you can put through a window”, etc that result in civilian collateral damage that it’s hard to envision controlling casualties with ordinance of this magnitude.
But…maybe it really was in the middle of nowhere. But then of course ISIS may mount a media blitz with dead kids in relation to the even too, so it’s hard to really believe anything these days.
With a bomb like this, I assume killing lots of people isn’t the goal so I am not sure why the focus is on KIAs. Destroying the tunnel complex is the objective. They won’t be able to use this complex to hide in or be able to stage raids from it. I would guess it was also used as something of a logistics base so any material that was in it will have been destroyed.
Video of the strike have been realeased. It was in a mountainous sparsely populated area. Those precision munitions are being used in urban areas because that’s where the enemy is in those instances.
Technically though the MOAB is a precision guided munition too. It has fine and is guided by a targeting aircraft. It’s dumped out of the back of a C-130 and then it picks up the where the target is being painted and is guided in. The blast radius is a bit too big to be considered precision I guess.
Well it depends. We probably will never get all the information. Was it targeted because those fighters were hard to get since they had a safe base to go back to? Was it a logistical center? Was it used as a bomb making factory? High value individual targets? All of the above and more? Without access to the classified intel it’s hard to say if we will know the top priority of the mission.
I remember a Mythbusters episode where they replicated Hollywood explosions (I can’t remember the actual myth they were testing or the overall theme of the episode). The ultimate result was that they couldn’t get explosions to look “right” until they added gasoline. Then you got the flashy pyrotechnics that you’d expect.
So basically what people think of as an explosion is really combustion. An explosion is an invisible concussive force and can be visually subtle. What we want to see is FIRE.
It didn’t/doesn’t cost $16 million each. That’s a figure from the development of a bunker-buster penetration bomb - not the MOAB. The Moab was produced in-house at McAlester Army Ammunition Plant. It’s not so much a bomb as it’s a container. It’s a aluminum tube just strong enough to contain the H6 explosive fill. It get an off-the-shelf fuzing system and a modified (existing) semi-retarding and guiding fin assembly. Pretty cheap, MCAAP has at least three dummy MOABs on display. The explosive composition is cheap. Note that the wiki article claims it has “tritonal” composed of TNT and aluminum powder. That’s not Tritonal. Tritonal contains RDX, TNT, aluminum powder and a wax additive. The most expensive part is surprisingly the aluminum powder. MCAAP has, let’s say, high multiple tons of reclaimed TNT/RDX mixture but not for surplus sale:)
It’s deployed from a cargo aircraft. It can’t be delivered from a bomber because it has no hardpoints to attach to the aircraft. The container can’t absorb any g-loads a bomber/fighter might experience. The MOAB sits on a cradle that is attached to an aircraft pallet. From the videos on the web you can see a small drogue chute deployed first, then the main parachute, then the pallet is released from the hold downs in the aircraft. The parachute drags the pallet/cradle/MOAB out of the aircraft, the MOAB separates from the cradle and pallet and is guided to the target. It’s freefall so there isn’t a whole bunch of maneuvering possible. see the test drop https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_gk49n5djw
Which is it: Do you need me to explain *what *a false dilemma is ? Or do you need me to spell out how both those quotes are prime examples? My post was loaded with meaning, so clearly I’m dealing with some lack on your part, i’m just trying to identify what that is.
To spell out the issue, there may be false dilemma, but I thought the way you approached that point was a little unreasonable.
You had originally said:
Here you said that this is not a cost-effective way to kill ISIS combatants. At that stage, your comment seemed to grant the assumption that we do want to kill ISIS combatants, and suggested that there must be a better way to do so. And you got replies on that basis (that there is perhaps no better way).
To then turn around and dismiss those responses by claiming that it’s a false dilemma that we must choose between the various available methods to kill ISIS combatants (even if that may be true) just seems like moving the goalposts of that discussion.
No, even if you *do *want to kill or defeat the militants, there are other options beyond sending people into the tunnels/using MOAB *or *using other bombs/using MOAB.
Ok, but what does it add to the conversation to just say “false dilemma” without stating the better alternatives that you see (which you still have not done).
Pointing out the false dilemma is enough of a counterargument - I didn’t even need to point out alternatives myself, the two false dilemmas in themselves provide alternatives for each other.
I’m interested in the non-use of the armament for the last 13 years.
The target optimum – not accounting for relatively low-protected personnel (which would be far more efficiently and safely bombed with packages other than a C5 and a one-shot)–of the wide-spread not-very-deep tunnel and supply route complex for ISIS, was defined as such (“optimum”) by the Pentagon.
Which to me, at least (:)) sounds plausible. Clearly the political/PsyOP uses of such an event/weapon or also in play (hence the “personnel” option mentioned above, to “shock and awe” the Iraqis and start the War off with a bang, which ultimately, never happened). To get a better grip on which goal becomes paramount, or which goal became paramount under the military deciders under Trump, I ask the following:
Which US war-time scenarios since 2003 (i.e., sadly, all that time) presented a target-munition package (i.e., transport plane+MOAB) as a weaponry choice only similar to this one when it was used?
AIUI the idea is to kill as many exposed terrorists out in the open as possible. If you use multiple, smaller bombs, then the moment the first bomb goes off, everyone else dashes for cover, perhaps before other bombs have arrived. One MOAB doesn’t give enough time to flee.
You are speaking tactics and yet you give no examples either using others opinions or your own vast military knowledge.
Smaller bombs even many of them do not give you the large over pressure effect which is the purpose of the MOAB. They were not looking for penetration. It was an air burst. There really isn’t anything else that will give a large over pressure effect, do it over a large area such as an entire tunnel complex, and do it all at once.