Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
A Town Called Malus wrote: That bomb is not designed to kill a lot of people, it is designed to take out hardened targets such as bunkers. It is a successor to weapons such as Grand Slam from WW2, whose main aim is not destruction of personnel but the destruction of installations.
Looking at the effect of a strike purely in terms of body count is laughably idiotic.
If you're familiar with the history of the Vietnam war, then you'll know the same propaganda was being churned out by the Johnson administration on a weekly basis.
Our bombers dropped a billion tons of bombs on North Vietnam this week, and in the end, it added up to the square root of gak all.
Trump is not the first politician to be secluded by the so called effectiveness of fighting a war from the air.
In all honesty, I think this is Trump tying to tell the world my bomb's bigger than yours!
It's another Trump ego trip IMO.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
A Town Called Malus wrote: That bomb is not designed to kill a lot of people, it is designed to take out hardened targets such as bunkers. It is a successor to weapons such as Grand Slam from WW2, whose main aim is not destruction of personnel but the destruction of installations.
Looking at the effect of a strike purely in terms of body count is laughably idiotic.
Actually, the MOAB is very much designed to kill lots of people. It's an airburst weapon, so is great at flattening non-hardened surface installations, clearing landing zones, and killing large amounts of troops at once. It's remarkably BAD at destroying hardened bunkers. It's a successor to the daisy cutters of Vietnam rather than the Grand Slam, which was designed to actually penetrate its target before exploding.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/14 11:54:47
A Town Called Malus wrote: That bomb is not designed to kill a lot of people, it is designed to take out hardened targets such as bunkers. It is a successor to weapons such as Grand Slam from WW2, whose main aim is not destruction of personnel but the destruction of installations.
Looking at the effect of a strike purely in terms of body count is laughably idiotic.
Actually, the MOAB is very much designed to kill lots of people. It's an airburst weapon, so is great at flattening non-hardened surface installations, clearing landing zones, and killing large amounts of troops at once. It's remarkably BAD at destroying hardened bunkers. It's a successor to the daisy cutters of Vietnam rather than the Grand Slam, which was designed to actually penetrate its target before exploding.
Oops, you're right.
That serves me for not double checking before posting
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Vaktathi wrote: I too am puzzled by the hulabaloo over the use of the MOAB. It's a single big piece of ordnance, yeah its big, but we routinely drop equivalent destruction with lots of smaller bombs all the time.
No, actually we don't. We haven't dropped enough ordinance in a single strike to come close to the MOAB in a long time.
d-usa wrote: Looks like the internet is buzzing about the US dropping a MOAB on ISIS.
Have we not used them before?
Do you think this was a "remember, we don't have to go nuclear to feth gak up" reminder to certain folks?
As I understand it the planning started months ago under Obama and it wasn't a direct authorization from Trump, so I would think it's more of a military application than a political one. It certainly does serve as a reminder as you said though.
Yeah, but Trump will still get the credit for it.
For good reason. Obama never approved the strike. I know folks involved in the planning and execution of this. It was not allowed under Obama.
Vaktathi wrote: I too am puzzled by the hulabaloo over the use of the MOAB. It's a single big piece of ordnance, yeah its big, but we routinely drop equivalent destruction with lots of smaller bombs all the time.
I'm not sure about this, this bomb has a half mile radius explosion, which is pretty insane. It also penetrates pretty deep. I'm no expert on ordinance, so I have no idea what the equivalent would be in smaller bombs but it sure seems like it would take a lot.
Eh, it's equivalent to about 11 tons of TNT, it's a big bomb to be sure, but it's also not a mini-nuke, it's packing about as much total ordnance power as a full combat load of conventional 500lb bombs for something like an A-10, maybe a little more. It actually isn't really a penetration weapon either, it's just got a big focused shockwave. It's really a dick-waving weapon to trot out and drool over, and to make a really big intimidating Boom on the battlefield to shock opponents, and the reason it isn't used more often is because a clutch of smaller and dramatically cheaper 500lb bombs (at ~$2k apeice as opposed to the $16 million unit cost of a MOAB) do the trick of actually destroying things just as well or better in almost every case, and can be deployed from a far wider variety of platforms.
In this case it sounds like it was either pulled out for one of three reasons. Either the cave system this was deployed against was particularly favorable to the deployment of this weapon for whatever reason over multiple smaller conventional munitions, or it was used for image purposes, as intimidation and projection of strength or small political distraction.
You should have stopped at "I'm no expert on ordinance".
Weighing in at a ton and reportedly costing $13 millions dollars a go, 36 militants are said to have been killed by it. Leaving aside the propaganda on the news, how do they know it was 36 militants killed?
I doubt there would be much left of them after that.
So, 36 militants killed, at $13 million a bomb = 361,000 dollars to kill a militant.
If I were a American taxpayer, I'd be demanding my money back.
After 16 years of bombing a desert, the USA is exactly where it was 16 years ago
It's fantasy politics from start to finish. Arguably one of the most powerful militaries the world has ever seen,
and it ends up in the hands of a man with the mind of a 10 year old...
God help us...
It isn't the militants, it is the tunnels used to move material and personnel which are not longer usable. The people were not the target.
A Town Called Malus wrote: That bomb is not designed to kill a lot of people, it is designed to take out hardened targets such as bunkers. It is a successor to weapons such as Grand Slam from WW2, whose main aim is not destruction of personnel but the destruction of installations.
Looking at the effect of a strike purely in terms of body count is laughably idiotic.
Actually, the MOAB is very much designed to kill lots of people. It's an airburst weapon, so is great at flattening non-hardened surface installations, clearing landing zones, and killing large amounts of troops at once. It's remarkably BAD at destroying hardened bunkers. It's a successor to the daisy cutters of Vietnam rather than the Grand Slam, which was designed to actually penetrate its target before exploding.
No, it was specifically designed for bunkers/tunnels like this target (though not good for very deep targets as it is not a penetrator). It was chosen for this particular target for a reason. It was not a random 'lets use the big one' it was a very scientific approach based on target parameters and desired effect. The terrain (canyon/valley) and the way the tunnel complex was tied into the terrain, made this the most effective ordinance choice.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/04/14 13:26:31
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
So the MOAB is not a "penetration" bomb. So I take it that the massive blast wave from the bomb was meant to enter the tunnels and feth things up that way?
Be prepared, there is a small chance that our horrendous leadership could unknowingly lead us into World War III.
He really tweeted that? That's a joke, right? I mean, what " horrendous leadership" is he talking about? He says "our", but he's perfectly aware he is the leader of USA, right? It's like he's talking about himself but without really realizing that's him he's talking about. Or is he admitting he's not part of that leadership, like he can't decide anything?
Surrealist.
And he's really talking about World War III. That should be the most terrifying thing of all.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/14 13:27:26
I imagine the sheer force of [the blast] hitting the ground would really screw up tunnels under the ground without need an entrance to go traipsing through. I doubt we are looking at concrete reinforced tunnels after all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/14 13:30:36
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
d-usa wrote: So the MOAB is not a "penetration" bomb. So I take it that the massive blast wave from the bomb was meant to enter the tunnels and feth things up that way?
I'll PM a message form one of the planners.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
d-usa wrote: So the MOAB is not a "penetration" bomb. So I take it that the massive blast wave from the bomb was meant to enter the tunnels and feth things up that way?
This is correct. The idea behind it is that, since traditional bunker busters won't penetrate that deep and are more targeted (and tend to kill with fragmentation), the MOAB instead forces the massive blast wave into the deepest parts of the tunnel, whereas fragmentation basically stops as soon as you turn a corner
Be prepared, there is a small chance that our horrendous leadership could unknowingly lead us into World War III.
He really tweeted that? That's a joke, right? I mean, what " horrendous leadership" is he talking about? He says "our", but he's perfectly aware he is the leader of USA, right? It's like he's talking about himself but without really realizing that's him he's talking about. Or is he admitting he's not part of that leadership, like he can't decide anything?
Surrealist.
And he's really talking about World War III. That should be the most terrifying thing of all.
Look at the date.
-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."
Be prepared, there is a small chance that our horrendous leadership could unknowingly lead us into World War III.
He really tweeted that? That's a joke, right? I mean, what " horrendous leadership" is he talking about? He says "our", but he's perfectly aware he is the leader of USA, right? It's like he's talking about himself but without really realizing that's him he's talking about. Or is he admitting he's not part of that leadership, like he can't decide anything?
Surrealist.
And he's really talking about World War III. That should be the most terrifying thing of all.
He tweeted it whilst Obama was in the Whitehouse. No joking at all.
d-usa wrote: Looks like the internet is buzzing about the US dropping a MOAB on ISIS.
Have we not used them before?
Do you think this was a "remember, we don't have to go nuclear to feth gak up" reminder to certain folks?
As I understand it the planning started months ago under Obama and it wasn't a direct authorization from Trump, so I would think it's more of a military application than a political one. It certainly does serve as a reminder as you said though.
Yeah, but Trump will still get the credit for it.
For good reason. Obama never approved the strike. I know folks involved in the planning and execution of this. It was not allowed under Obama.
ya Obama just had the bomb moved to the area and gave permission for his general to use it, Trump was only notified it was going to get used, he never suggested it, nor approved it.
Obama set it up, and Gen Nicholson knocked it down, trump obviously was not given to much notice of the attack in case he decided to warn isis or seek russias permission. So sure let's give credit to someone who had nothing to do with it.
The target was in a remote area where the risk of civilian casualties would be low. Gen. John Nicholson, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, said the decision to drop the bomb was made because it was the best fit for the target.
A senior Defense official told USA TODAY that Nicholson had the authority to use the bomb under President Barack Obama as well as President Trump.
Not having a go at anybody on dakka, but if the US government is spinning the line that this giant bomb of doom was used to destroy some tunnels then the US military and the US government have well and truly lost the plot.
If this is the quality of leadership that the American people are getting, then rip up the declaration of independence and start again.
Holy horsegak. $13 million to bomb some tunnels
I pray to God that ISIL don't discover that they can go and dig some new tunnels somewhere else.
The lunatics have well and truly taken over the asylum. How the feth were these people allowed to hijack a superpower?
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Vaktathi wrote: I too am puzzled by the hulabaloo over the use of the MOAB. It's a single big piece of ordnance, yeah its big, but we routinely drop equivalent destruction with lots of smaller bombs all the time.
No, actually we don't. We haven't dropped enough ordinance in a single strike to come close to the MOAB in a long time.
So B-52's dropping 50,000 pounds of ordnance in carpet bombings in Afghanistan doesn't count? Or are you talking about dropping a single piece of ordnance on literally a single point as opposed to an area?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Not having a go at anybody on dakka, but if the US government is spinning the line that this giant bomb of doom was used to destroy some tunnels then the US military and the US government have well and truly lost the plot.
If this is the quality of leadership that the American people are getting, then rip up the declaration of independence and start again.
Holy horsegak. $13 million to bomb some tunnels
We've fired $100k hellfire missiles (just the missile, not counting the cost of flying an aircraft in a coordianted strike effort in a combat zone) on a hellfire missile to blow up a single dude on...more than one occasion. There's a great meme going around about using an $80,000 anti-tank missile by a dude who doesn't make that in a year on a dude who doesn't make that in his lifetime.
Part of this is simply the nature of warfare, it is insanely expensive. If you look at the average number of small arms rounds expended to result in a single enemy kill, it's about $10,000+ worth of small arms ammo (though that's not entirely accurate as ammo is expended for other reasons like suppressive fire as well). A single belt of ammo on an M2 heavy machine gun, that can be run through in just a few seconds, is about $300-500+ or more depending on ammo type.
That said, direct monetary value cannot always be tied to the use of a weapon. Killing a single dude with a $5 million dollar strike seems excessive, but if he's spotting for an artillery battery that could wreak tens of millions of dollars in destruction on your forces and dozens of casualties, it's a net win.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/14 14:28:31
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Vaktathi wrote: I too am puzzled by the hulabaloo over the use of the MOAB. It's a single big piece of ordnance, yeah its big, but we routinely drop equivalent destruction with lots of smaller bombs all the time.
No, actually we don't. We haven't dropped enough ordinance in a single strike to come close to the MOAB in a long time.
So B-52's dropping 50,000 pounds of ordnance in carpet bombings in Afghanistan doesn't count? Or are you talking about dropping a single piece of ordnance on literally a single point as opposed to an area?
Do you have any examples of B52's carpet bombing in Afghanistan?
Hint: We haven't.
Even the Buffs release 1-2 at a time at specific point targets.
And honestly even if you did drop a full B-52 load, it would not have the same type of effect as this one bomb did, the munitions are very different. You can't just add up the weights of single smaller bombs and think the explosive power/effect would be the same as this one. That isn't how it works.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/04/14 14:34:53
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Vaktathi wrote: I too am puzzled by the hulabaloo over the use of the MOAB. It's a single big piece of ordnance, yeah its big, but we routinely drop equivalent destruction with lots of smaller bombs all the time.
No, actually we don't. We haven't dropped enough ordinance in a single strike to come close to the MOAB in a long time.
So B-52's dropping 50,000 pounds of ordnance in carpet bombings in Afghanistan doesn't count? Or are you talking about dropping a single piece of ordnance on literally a single point as opposed to an area?
Do you have any examples of B52's carpet bombing in Afghanistan?
Hint: We haven't.
while not the most recent example (sitting in a parking lot right now killing a few minutes time, unfortunately dont have time to pull more detailed data) the opening of the Afghanistan conflict saw very notable examples that Google can immediately present, and youtube is replete with bombing footage of that sort from the region.
Even the Buffs release 1-2 at a time at specific point targets.
Most of the time absolutely.
And honestly even if you did drop a full B-52 load, it would not have the same type of effect as this one bomb did, the munitions are very different. You can't just add up the weights of single smaller bombs and think the explosive power/effect would be the same as this one. That isn't how it works.
They absolutely have different effects, I wont debate that, but we're not talking orders of magnitude difference in the level of destruction, but rather different effects for different circumstancrs, same way a shotgun slug versus a burst of fire from a 5.56 act differently and require different tools to deploy but are considered roughly within the same general scale of firepower, one is not an order of magnitude greater than the other the way say, something like a crew served/vehicle mounted weapon might be.
My original point was to counter some of the freakout of people thinking this was akin to a mininuke and some sort of major escalation in the scale of firepower as opposed to the usage of a specialist tool for a specialist job for special reasons, of roughly the same magnitude (but of a different character) as what we have deployed many times before.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
You original point was " we routinely drop equivalent destruction with lots of smaller bombs all the time."
And it is wrong. An example of 'dozens of bombs' from 2001 kind of makes my point. No where near a full load from a single B52, let alone anything resembling actual 'carpet bombing' regardless that the reporter used that term. And it does not come close to showing " we routinely drop equivalent destruction with lots of smaller bombs all the time."
If you want to revise what your original point was, fine.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Vaktathi wrote: I too am puzzled by the hulabaloo over the use of the MOAB. It's a single big piece of ordnance, yeah its big, but we routinely drop equivalent destruction with lots of smaller bombs all the time.
No, actually we don't. We haven't dropped enough ordinance in a single strike to come close to the MOAB in a long time.
So B-52's dropping 50,000 pounds of ordnance in carpet bombings in Afghanistan doesn't count? Or are you talking about dropping a single piece of ordnance on literally a single point as opposed to an area?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Not having a go at anybody on dakka, but if the US government is spinning the line that this giant bomb of doom was used to destroy some tunnels then the US military and the US government have well and truly lost the plot.
If this is the quality of leadership that the American people are getting, then rip up the declaration of independence and start again.
Holy horsegak. $13 million to bomb some tunnels
We've fired $100k hellfire missiles (just the missile, not counting the cost of flying an aircraft in a coordianted strike effort in a combat zone) on a hellfire missile to blow up a single dude on...more than one occasion. There's a great meme going around about using an $80,000 anti-tank missile by a dude who doesn't make that in a year on a dude who doesn't make that in his lifetime.
Part of this is simply the nature of warfare, it is insanely expensive. If you look at the average number of small arms rounds expended to result in a single enemy kill, it's about $10,000+ worth of small arms ammo (though that's not entirely accurate as ammo is expended for other reasons like suppressive fire as well). A single belt of ammo on an M2 heavy machine gun, that can be run through in just a few seconds, is about $300-500+ or more depending on ammo type.
That said, direct monetary value cannot always be tied to the use of a weapon. Killing a single dude with a $5 million dollar strike seems excessive, but if he's spotting for an artillery battery that could wreak tens of millions of dollars in destruction on your forces and dozens of casualties, it's a net win.
It would be a lot cheaper and probably more cost effective to pay these people to go away.
I've been saying it for years, but the Western strategy is a shambles, a mess, non-existant. You may as well bomb the middle of the Pacific.
Richard Nixon, of all people, was probably the last POTUS who had a plan, a strategy for American foreign policy. Since then, it's all been down hill.
And the tragedy is that it's poor Americans, their sons and daughters, who go off to die in foreign lands, just so rich people in New York and Washington can become even richer...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I'm showing my age here, but I remember Reagan well.
I liked him, but as you get older and read more, you discover that there is Reagan the myth, and Reagan the reality, and never the twain shall meet.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Prestor Jon wrote: The govt can only solve problems through increased govt control over the activities/circumstances that are causing the problem.
Yeah, but read my post again. It's simply wrong to think of the issue as a singular flow of new government programs and powers to solve problems. Programs and powers that are seen to no longer work are rolled back. Problems that are resolved, go away or simply stop being seen as an issue lead to cancelled programs and powers. You would have a basis for an argument if you talked about the potential for programs and powers to continue even though the program/power is no longer needed or shown to be ineffective. But instead you talk about it as an absolute rule, which just ain't so.
The Parties claim to want to solve problems but the govt really isn't good at solving problems because the default govt solution is to throw money into a one size fits all solution to placate a constituency, which is rarely an effective solution to anything.
Generalist ideology is useless. Please don't do that kind of thing.
Look at the War on Poverty, it's been going on for over 60 years and was supposed to help the urban poor. Instead it created govt dependency based on counter productive assistance programs which penalize self improvement and trap families into cycles of poverty creating a de facto underclass.
Absolute poppycock. Before the War on Poverty, the rate of poverty in the US was north of 20%. Ten years after the war on poverty and the rate had dropped to 10%. It's wobbled around since then, but never exceeded 15%, and generally been not far from 10%. And that's without including food stamps and the EITC, which the official measure bizarrely fails to include. Add those in and the poverty rate becomes very strongly anchored around 10%. At this point it becomes an exercise in plain denial of reality to claim that poverty in the US hasn't been reduced by anti-poverty programs.
if you bring in additional incomes sources like You can have govt housing, govt food stamps, govt welfare payments but it's contingent on you not getting jobs and trying to improve your situation because if you earn money, even wages lower than your cumulative assistance, the govt withdraws assistance (which is incredibly stupid, the programs should keep supporting people so they can continue to work towards better opportunities and reach a point of self sufficiency) leaving the people the govt is supposed to be helping worse off. Urban areas have the most extreme wealth inequality and education gaps.
One of the most incredible things in American politics is that all this got raised and resolved in the 90s by the Republican congress working with Bill Clinton. But then conservatives just kept repeating the old complaints as if they were still true.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/14 16:35:07
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
It would be a lot cheaper and probably more cost effective to pay these people to go away.
I've been saying it for years, but the Western strategy is a shambles, a mess, non-existant. You may as well bomb the middle of the Pacific.
Richard Nixon, of all people, was probably the last POTUS who had a plan, a strategy for American foreign policy. Since then, it's all been down hill.
And the tragedy is that it's poor Americans, their sons and daughters, who go off to die in foreign lands, just so rich people in New York and Washington can become even richer...
Are you now proposing that we pay ISIS and Assad to go away? And you're trying to argue that the US and the rest of the western world has no plan?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/14 16:37:54
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Weighing in at a ton and reportedly costing $13 millions dollars a go, 36 militants are said to have been killed by it. Leaving aside the propaganda on the news, how do they know it was 36 militants killed?
I doubt there would be much left of them after that.
So, 36 militants killed, at $13 million a bomb = 361,000 dollars to kill a militant.
If I were a American taxpayer, I'd be demanding my money back.
...
I wouldn't. I would be applauding. We haven't had the chance to drop a bomb that big since WW2.
Herzlos wrote: Getting killed by artillery is generally pretty quick, whilst chemical weapons can take a long time and be utterly horrific to suffer though.
That isn't actually true. The blast wave can rupture organs leading to a long, incredibly painful death. Shrapnel can slice and puncture with bleed out again taking a horribly long time. Burns cause insufferable pain without causing a quick death. Then there's crushing and other impact injuries, which are also very unlikely to kill instantly.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Weighing in at a ton and reportedly costing $13 millions dollars a go, 36 militants are said to have been killed by it. Leaving aside the propaganda on the news, how do they know it was 36 militants killed?
I doubt there would be much left of them after that.
So, 36 militants killed, at $13 million a bomb = 361,000 dollars to kill a militant.
If I were a American taxpayer, I'd be demanding my money back.
...
I wouldn't. I would be applauding. We haven't had the chance to drop a bomb that big since WW2.
It would be a lot cheaper and probably more cost effective to pay these people to go away.
I've been saying it for years, but the Western strategy is a shambles, a mess, non-existant. You may as well bomb the middle of the Pacific.
Richard Nixon, of all people, was probably the last POTUS who had a plan, a strategy for American foreign policy. Since then, it's all been down hill.
And the tragedy is that it's poor Americans, their sons and daughters, who go off to die in foreign lands, just so rich people in New York and Washington can become even richer...
Are you now proposing that we pay ISIS and Assad to go away? And you're trying to argue that the US and the rest of the western world has no plan?
Well, the USA and the UK have spent trillions between them bombing camels for the last 16 years, and it added up to the square root of gak all. Paying them to go away is not that bad a plan when you consider the absolute failure of American foreign policy since 2001.
I cannot think of one single positive thing the USA has achieved foreign policy wise since 9/11.
It is a dumpster fire full of gak, and now they're dropping mega bombs of doom on it...
Weighing in at a ton and reportedly costing $13 millions dollars a go, 36 militants are said to have been killed by it. Leaving aside the propaganda on the news, how do they know it was 36 militants killed?
I doubt there would be much left of them after that.
So, 36 militants killed, at $13 million a bomb = 361,000 dollars to kill a militant.
If I were a American taxpayer, I'd be demanding my money back.
...
I wouldn't. I would be applauding. We haven't had the chance to drop a bomb that big since WW2.
Dropping thousands of copies of Star Trek TNG series 1 and unleashing the Wesley Crusher on ISIL would probably secure victory a lot better, quicker, and cheaper than this madness.
If I had the time, money, and inclination, I'd be on a plane to Washington, and when I got there, I'd smack them around the head with my Vietnam war history books!
The last ime you bombed tunnels they just DUG more!!!!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/14 17:00:26
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
I cannot think of one single positive thing the USA has achieved foreign policy wise since 9/11.
Obama's meetings and normalizing of relations with Cuba is seen, by those who study political science and foreign policy as a huge success. I will grant you that Academia often seems to be a far cry from "real life," but it is one notable area where I happen to agree with Pres. O on doing at the time.
Also, an article in "The Atlantic" list the Cuba thing alongside his climate deal (that Trump seems to have swiftly backed us away from), and the Iran nuclear deal as being successes. Now, I know the Iran thing was hotly debated on these boards, but again, the people who study international relations for a living are calling it a success while armchair generals and NASCAR fans across the US are claiming we're giving them nukes. I know which group I'd rather believe.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/14 17:09:23
I cannot think of one single positive thing the USA has achieved foreign policy wise since 9/11.
Obama's meetings and normalizing of relations with Cuba is seen, by those who study political science and foreign policy as a huge success. I will grant you that Academia often seems to be a far cry from "real life," but it is one notable area where I happen to agree with Pres. O on doing at the time.
Also, an article in "The Atlantic" list the Cuba thing alongside his climate deal (that Trump seems to have swiftly backed us away from), and the Iran nuclear deal as being successes. Now, I know the Iran thing was hotly debated on these boards, but again, the people who study international relations for a living are calling it a success while armchair generals and NASCAR fans across the US are claiming we're giving them nukes. I know which group I'd rather believe.
I'm in the camp that thinks the Iran deal was the right thing to do. As I've said before I sat through the Congress and Senate hearings on it.
None the less, I can't declare it a success, because one thing I learned from the Congress and Senate hearings is this:
The GOP are a bunch of morons. They are itching to pull the plug on it, and with Trump at 1600, they will probably succeed.
I'm no John Kerry fan, but that man deserves another medal for turning the tables on clueless GOP Senators.
You don't like the deal, so what would you do instead? asked Kerry...
GOP jaws hit the floor. They didn't have a clue!
These oxygen thiefs couldn't find their rears without a map and compass.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
I cannot think of one single positive thing the USA has achieved foreign policy wise since 9/11.
Obama's meetings and normalizing of relations with Cuba is seen, by those who study political science and foreign policy as a huge success. I will grant you that Academia often seems to be a far cry from "real life," but it is one notable area where I happen to agree with Pres. O on doing at the time.
Also, an article in "The Atlantic" list the Cuba thing alongside his climate deal (that Trump seems to have swiftly backed us away from), and the Iran nuclear deal as being successes. Now, I know the Iran thing was hotly debated on these boards, but again, the people who study international relations for a living are calling it a success while armchair generals and NASCAR fans across the US are claiming we're giving them nukes. I know which group I'd rather believe.
I'm in the camp that thinks the Iran deal was the right thing to do. As I've said before I sat through the Congress and Senate hearings on it.
None the less, I can't declare it a success, because one thing I learned from the Congress and Senate hearings is this:
The GOP are a bunch of morons. They are itching to pull the plug on it, and with Trump at 1600, they will probably succeed.
I'm no John Kerry fan, but that man deserves another medal for turning the tables on clueless GOP Senators.
You don't like the deal, so what would you do instead? asked Kerry...
GOP jaws hit the floor. They didn't have a clue!
These oxygen thiefs couldn't find their rears without a map and compass.
So... paying Iran pallet loads of money wasn't a success... wny do you think it'd work for Syria/ISIS/Bugaboos?
18.000 
3.500 
8.200 
3.300 
2.400 
3.100 
5.500 
2.500 
3.200 
3.000
plot.
