This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
No thread on Trump's use of MOAB? Your slipping UKC.
The last week has shown that Trump is not just going to withdraw from the world stage as some thought. To me the message is "We didn't use nukes but we could have". In other words Trump is not afraid to use the fire power at his disposal.
Is it warmongering or a justified display of strength? So far reports say that no civilians were killed but it seems a change in tactic from "hearts and minds" peace keeping to a more aggressive approach.
Is this what the world needs or is it the slippery slope to world conflict?
The last week has shown that Trump is not just going to withdraw from the world stage as some thought. To me the message is "We didn't use nukes but we could have". In other words Trump is not afraid to use the fire power at his disposal.
Is it warmongering or a justified display of strength? So far reports say that no civilians were killed but it seems a change in tactic from "hearts and minds" peace keeping to a more aggressive approach.
Is this what the world needs or is it the slippery slope to world conflict?
1
3
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
You mean "You're slipping UKC." Standards haven't fallen that far!
You mean "You're slipping UKC." Standards haven't fallen that far!
35
In reply to deepsoup:
You mean "You're slipping, UKC." Thank you
> You mean "You're slipping UKC."....
You mean "You're slipping, UKC." Thank you
21
26
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
I think that the use of airstrikes to support Afghan government forces is consistent with US policy under the Obama administration over many years. I don't know whether or not the use of this particular bomb was a tactical or political decision, but to put it in perspective, it is equivalent to only a fraction of the combined bomb load of a single B52, so it isn't really an escalation.
It seems to have really captured the attention of the media, so if it was intended to serve a political purpose, then it may well have been effective.
> Is it warmongering or a justified display of strength? So far reports say that no civilians were killed but it seems a change in tactic from "hearts and minds" peace keeping to a more aggressive approach. Is this what the world needs or is it the slippery slope to world conflict?
I think that the use of airstrikes to support Afghan government forces is consistent with US policy under the Obama administration over many years. I don't know whether or not the use of this particular bomb was a tactical or political decision, but to put it in perspective, it is equivalent to only a fraction of the combined bomb load of a single B52, so it isn't really an escalation.
It seems to have really captured the attention of the media, so if it was intended to serve a political purpose, then it may well have been effective.
7
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
OK hands up who's got an opinion on this story?
Now keep your hand up if you knew what a MOAB was when you woke up this morning.
I thought as much
OK hands up who's got an opinion on this story?
Now keep your hand up if you knew what a MOAB was when you woke up this morning.
I thought as much
3
1
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
I thought Moab was Stephen Fry's wash pot.
> Now keep your hand up if you knew what a MOAB was when you woke up this morning.
I thought Moab was Stephen Fry's wash pot.
5
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
Kind of a boring name, they should have had a competition.
> Now keep your hand up if you knew what a MOAB was when you woke up this morning.
Kind of a boring name, they should have had a competition.
1
In reply to nufkin:
Ain't nothing so good as putting the MOAC in. Blam! Once it's gone home you're safe.
Ain't nothing so good as putting the MOAC in. Blam! Once it's gone home you're safe.
2
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
Mother Of All Boulders
> OK hands up who's got an opinion on this story? Now keep your hand up if you knew what a MOAB was when you woke up this morning. I thought as much
Mother Of All Boulders
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
Bit of a tricky one.
The MOAB is apparently a 21,000 lb bomb, equal to about 11 tonnes of TNT.
That's not far short of the 15 ton TNT equivalent dropped on Hiroshima.
Though looked at another way, a single B-52 can drop an even greater TNT equivalent than the MOAB when shooting its load of bog-standard 500lb Mk-82 iron bombs - the staple and minimum ordinance on just about any NATO aircraft. I imagine that many Mk-82s get dropped by the US in the Middle East every day.
More disturbing I found was the rather casual and jovial manner that folk talk about these sorts of weapons on youtube documentary clips (Discovery Channel "Weapons of War!" style stuff). Randy, from down at the golf club, likes to watch football on a Monday, goes to church, enjoys his Bud over the BBQ at the weekend, produces ridiculously powerful weapons able to annihilate cities or dispersed humans during his 9 to 5. Also, rather ironic that dispensed from a C-130, its kind of a rich-man's version of the barrel-bombs we don't like Assad using.
Bit of a tricky one.
The MOAB is apparently a 21,000 lb bomb, equal to about 11 tonnes of TNT.
That's not far short of the 15 ton TNT equivalent dropped on Hiroshima.
Though looked at another way, a single B-52 can drop an even greater TNT equivalent than the MOAB when shooting its load of bog-standard 500lb Mk-82 iron bombs - the staple and minimum ordinance on just about any NATO aircraft. I imagine that many Mk-82s get dropped by the US in the Middle East every day.
More disturbing I found was the rather casual and jovial manner that folk talk about these sorts of weapons on youtube documentary clips (Discovery Channel "Weapons of War!" style stuff). Randy, from down at the golf club, likes to watch football on a Monday, goes to church, enjoys his Bud over the BBQ at the weekend, produces ridiculously powerful weapons able to annihilate cities or dispersed humans during his 9 to 5. Also, rather ironic that dispensed from a C-130, its kind of a rich-man's version of the barrel-bombs we don't like Assad using.
Post edited at 15:00
6
10
In reply to David Martin:
Disagree. Beyond Assad's choice of civilian targets, it's not being dropped from a non-bomber aircraft that makes barrel bombs bad, it's being dropped imprecisely without a guidance and navigation packag. Both the MC-130 and the bomb have guidance and navigation kit designed for precision targeting.
> Also, rather ironic that dispensed from a C-130, its kind of a rich-man's version of the barrel-bombs we don't like Assad using.
Disagree. Beyond Assad's choice of civilian targets, it's not being dropped from a non-bomber aircraft that makes barrel bombs bad, it's being dropped imprecisely without a guidance and navigation packag. Both the MC-130 and the bomb have guidance and navigation kit designed for precision targeting.
10
1
In reply to David Martin:
Um... I think you are off by a factor of 1000 or so. The "little boy" bomb was somewhere about 15kT, not 15T. Though nukes down that size were developed later.
> Bit of a tricky one.The MOAB is apparently a 21,000 lb bomb, equal to about 11 tonnes of TNT. That's not far short of the 15 ton TNT equivalent dropped on Hiroshima.
Um... I think you are off by a factor of 1000 or so. The "little boy" bomb was somewhere about 15kT, not 15T. Though nukes down that size were developed later.
24
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
Having more than a passing interest in military stuff the Mass Ordnance Air Blast is the correct weapon to deal with caves etc.
Military have been working for some time to combat the Taliban (originally) in these deep cave systems, as "bunker busting" bombs/missiles are not effective..
Sends the correct signals to ISIS/ISIL, we can still kill you deep in your cave systems, there is no hiding!
Having more than a passing interest in military stuff the Mass Ordnance Air Blast is the correct weapon to deal with caves etc.
Military have been working for some time to combat the Taliban (originally) in these deep cave systems, as "bunker busting" bombs/missiles are not effective..
Sends the correct signals to ISIS/ISIL, we can still kill you deep in your cave systems, there is no hiding!
6
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
I well remember the town of Moab in Utah. I drove through it once, it's a lovely area.
> .....Now keep your hand up if you knew what a MOAB was when you woke up this morning. I thought as much
I well remember the town of Moab in Utah. I drove through it once, it's a lovely area.
3
1
In reply to Jack B:
Well spotted. That's my Mars lander totalled.
> Um... I think you are off by a factor of 1000 or so. The "little boy" bomb was somewhere about 15kT, not 15T. Though nukes down that size were developed later.
Well spotted. That's my Mars lander totalled.
16
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
It was just a little side show to show NK what they can do non nuclear. I'm not convinced though. I don't think any of Kims generals dare tell him they'd get totalled if nk starts anything, ignorant bliss I think, until it all goes horribly wrong.
It was just a little side show to show NK what they can do non nuclear. I'm not convinced though. I don't think any of Kims generals dare tell him they'd get totalled if nk starts anything, ignorant bliss I think, until it all goes horribly wrong.
3
In reply to Snowdave:
Well, it's the best weapon until the counter insurgency version of the Warrenator is released...
youtube.com/watch?v=xYOd6cv6Hwk&
> Having more than a passing interest in military stuff the Mass Ordnance Air Blast is the correct weapon to deal with caves etc.
Well, it's the best weapon until the counter insurgency version of the Warrenator is released...
youtube.com/watch?v=xYOd6cv6Hwk&
In reply to Snowdave:
perhaps the real but unsaid message is that it could hit a North Korean Bunker complex
or is it embedded in a biblical reference :
"According to the biblical account, Moab and Ammon were born to Lot and Lot's elder and younger daughters, respectively, in the aftermath of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The Bible refers to both the Moabites and Ammonites as Lot's sons, born of incest with his daughters " Wikipedia
sounds begotten out of carnage with some bad connotations
perhaps the real but unsaid message is that it could hit a North Korean Bunker complex
or is it embedded in a biblical reference :
"According to the biblical account, Moab and Ammon were born to Lot and Lot's elder and younger daughters, respectively, in the aftermath of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The Bible refers to both the Moabites and Ammonites as Lot's sons, born of incest with his daughters " Wikipedia
sounds begotten out of carnage with some bad connotations
Post edited at 16:26
1
2
1
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
Typical American bragging. I'd go with Bomby McBombface any time.
> I dunno "Mother of all bombs" sounds pretty exciting to me
Typical American bragging. I'd go with Bomby McBombface any time.
18
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
I'm anticipating the UKC response;
https://scontent.fmel1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17884164_1507565259306747_7...
I'm anticipating the UKC response;
https://scontent.fmel1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17884164_1507565259306747_7...
6
1
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
I'm thinking the reason this bomb was used was coz Donald discovered they had this huge bomb which had never been used, and he REALLY wanted to see it go boom...
I'm thinking the reason this bomb was used was coz Donald discovered they had this huge bomb which had never been used, and he REALLY wanted to see it go boom...
8
4
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
Quite apart from destroying ISIS fighters, I've wondered if this may have also been intended as a message and demonstration to North Korea on the World Wide stage that the USA has the capability of destroying their underground nuclear facilities without themselves having to resort to nuclear weapons? Just a thought - Kim Jong-un take note?
On a different note I wonder at the claim that this is the World's biggest non nuclear bomb. At the end of WW2 Bomber Command's 617 Squadron Lancasters were dropping Barnes Wallis's Grand Slam. A 22,000 lb bomb known then as an "Earthquake Bomb" which could penetrate deep underground through reinforced concrete before detonating. It was used to destroy hardened V2 rocked launching sites and hardened U Boat pens, previously impervious to bombing.
Quite apart from destroying ISIS fighters, I've wondered if this may have also been intended as a message and demonstration to North Korea on the World Wide stage that the USA has the capability of destroying their underground nuclear facilities without themselves having to resort to nuclear weapons? Just a thought - Kim Jong-un take note?
On a different note I wonder at the claim that this is the World's biggest non nuclear bomb. At the end of WW2 Bomber Command's 617 Squadron Lancasters were dropping Barnes Wallis's Grand Slam. A 22,000 lb bomb known then as an "Earthquake Bomb" which could penetrate deep underground through reinforced concrete before detonating. It was used to destroy hardened V2 rocked launching sites and hardened U Boat pens, previously impervious to bombing.
1
In reply to Trangia:
The 10 T Grand Slam bomb would not have had that much explosive in it, a lot of the weight being the hardened shell needed to penetrate the RC structures. They also had delayed detonation available, so several could explode simultaneously for maximum effect.
IIRC there was also a large air blast bomb of similar weight during WW2, designed " to blow buildings over ".
This could have been a predecessor of the MOAB design.
The MOAB has 11 T of explosive ( or is that 11 T equivalent of TNT ) so will be of greater weight overall.
All OTTOMH, read a book on 617 squadron a while ago.
The 10 T Grand Slam bomb would not have had that much explosive in it, a lot of the weight being the hardened shell needed to penetrate the RC structures. They also had delayed detonation available, so several could explode simultaneously for maximum effect.
IIRC there was also a large air blast bomb of similar weight during WW2, designed " to blow buildings over ".
This could have been a predecessor of the MOAB design.
The MOAB has 11 T of explosive ( or is that 11 T equivalent of TNT ) so will be of greater weight overall.
All OTTOMH, read a book on 617 squadron a while ago.
In reply to Rick Graham:
Wasn't that the 4,000 lb "Cookie" designed to detonate about 100m above the ground and blow the roofs off large built up areas, which when mixed with incendiary bombs resulted in large area fires which created their own fire storms overwhelming the fire services and capable of destroying whole cities? Many cities including Hamburg and Cologne were virtually destroyed by the combination of these weapons.
> IIRC there was also a large air blast bomb of similar weight during WW2, designed " to blow buildings over ".
Wasn't that the 4,000 lb "Cookie" designed to detonate about 100m above the ground and blow the roofs off large built up areas, which when mixed with incendiary bombs resulted in large area fires which created their own fire storms overwhelming the fire services and capable of destroying whole cities? Many cities including Hamburg and Cologne were virtually destroyed by the combination of these weapons.
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
It has been suggested that the use of this bomb would probably not need to be sanctioned by the President.
However, given that it can't be blamed on Brexit I guess that Trump is the next best choice
> No thread on Trump's use of MOAB? Your slipping UKC.
It has been suggested that the use of this bomb would probably not need to be sanctioned by the President.
However, given that it can't be blamed on Brexit I guess that Trump is the next best choice
Post edited at 14:04
2
In reply to wintertree:
With a reported blast radius of a mile, *precision* guidance systems are probably OTT.
With a reported blast radius of a mile, *precision* guidance systems are probably OTT.
1
In reply to Trangia:
And trialled in the New Forest. There's even a scale model of the German submarine pens, now buried under a mound of earth.
> A 22,000 lb bomb known then as an "Earthquake Bomb" which could penetrate deep underground through reinforced concrete before detonating
And trialled in the New Forest. There's even a scale model of the German submarine pens, now buried under a mound of earth.
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
Such Bollox. New, president New, administration stretch in the morning scratch their balls set off a, a bomb
Such Bollox. New, president New, administration stretch in the morning scratch their balls set off a, a bomb
5
In reply to Trangia:
Gosh isn't war such fun.
> Wasn't that the 4,000 lb "Cookie" designed to detonate about 100m above the ground and blow the roofs off large built up areas, which when mixed with incendiary bombs resulted in large area fires which created their own fire storms overwhelming the fire services and capable of destroying whole cities? Many cities including Hamburg and Cologne were virtually destroyed by the combination of these weapons.
Gosh isn't war such fun.
1
2
1
In reply to Rick Graham:
Yep, wikipedia is great for bomb info, look up the Grandslam bomb on there. I'm waiting for the russkies to drop a FOAB
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_All_Bombs
> The 10 T Grand Slam bomb would not have had that much explosive in it, a lot of the weight being the hardened shell needed to penetrate the RC structures. The MOAB has 11 T of explosive ( or is that 11 T equivalent of TNT ) so will be of greater weight overall.All OTTOMH, read a book on 617 squadron a while ago.
Yep, wikipedia is great for bomb info, look up the Grandslam bomb on there. I'm waiting for the russkies to drop a FOAB
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_All_Bombs
Post edited at 12:59
In reply to Ridge:
To be fair, a small minority of people seem to have a whale of a time at war....
Consider Jack Churchill, with the only recorded longbow kill in WW2.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill
> Nope, it's simply war.
To be fair, a small minority of people seem to have a whale of a time at war....
Consider Jack Churchill, with the only recorded longbow kill in WW2.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill
1
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
If the MOAB can deal with a cave system, it'll have no problem with a bunker.
I suspect the Americans were sending N Korea 'a message' - the USA would have no need to resort to nukes
If the MOAB can deal with a cave system, it'll have no problem with a bunker.
I suspect the Americans were sending N Korea 'a message' - the USA would have no need to resort to nukes
In reply to blurty:
I doubt that a tunnel and cave system in the bum end of Afghanistan fortified by Isis with the aid of a pick , a shovel and a donkey can compare with a 30 year old nuclear weapons facility built under a mountain, costing a sizeable portion of a country's GDP.
...even if the GDP belongs to North Korea.
> If the MOAB can deal with a cave system, it'll have no problem with a bunker.
I doubt that a tunnel and cave system in the bum end of Afghanistan fortified by Isis with the aid of a pick , a shovel and a donkey can compare with a 30 year old nuclear weapons facility built under a mountain, costing a sizeable portion of a country's GDP.
...even if the GDP belongs to North Korea.
Post edited at 20:05
2
In reply to Stichtplate:
>... can compare with a 30 year old nuclear weapons facility built under a mountain
Even a 30 year old facility built under a mountain may not be as safe as it once was.
"The new bunker buster has a fusing system that will withstand impact with the more than 100ft of earth and concrete"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10035349/Pentagon...
Some of the papers were saying that the MOAB was built 14 years ago, but never used. I wonder what the use by date is? The electronics, batteries and bits and bobs will probably deteriorate over time. I wonder if they dropped it as it was going end of life (no pun). Send a message, kill bad guys and use up old kit.
>... can compare with a 30 year old nuclear weapons facility built under a mountain
Even a 30 year old facility built under a mountain may not be as safe as it once was.
"The new bunker buster has a fusing system that will withstand impact with the more than 100ft of earth and concrete"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10035349/Pentagon...
Some of the papers were saying that the MOAB was built 14 years ago, but never used. I wonder what the use by date is? The electronics, batteries and bits and bobs will probably deteriorate over time. I wonder if they dropped it as it was going end of life (no pun). Send a message, kill bad guys and use up old kit.
In reply to dread-i:
The extremely paranoid NK regime have been on a war footing for 67 years. Over that time they have got very good at digging really deep holes to keep stuff safe in.
You can bet that the one facility in the whole country that is absolutely vital to the continuation of their regime is going feature high up in the top ten of the worlds hardest targets.
The extremely paranoid NK regime have been on a war footing for 67 years. Over that time they have got very good at digging really deep holes to keep stuff safe in.
You can bet that the one facility in the whole country that is absolutely vital to the continuation of their regime is going feature high up in the top ten of the worlds hardest targets.
Post edited at 21:12
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...