Support NeoGAF

[Lil'DigiOp]

Its crazy that this "news" is that America dropped the biggest bomb before a nuke on ISIS.

Lmao, thats just a stupid fucking story.


And yes if you didn't know, for every innocent life slain in the Middle East, there are a handful of people willing to avenge it.

 

[AlexBasch]

Sooo this is how people felt during the Cold War? Fearing a nuclear strike is going to hit anytime soon?

Typing this and then getting vaporized in one second? Huh. Makes you think.

 

[TheContact]

Sooo this is how people felt during the Cold War? Fearing a nuclear strike is going to hit anytime soon?

Typing this and then getting vaporized in one second? Huh. Makes you think.

No because we could shoot down a missile well before it got to our coast (America). Now I fear for Europe though

 

[Lil'DigiOp]

Sooo this is how people felt during the Cold War? Fearing a nuclear strike is going to hit anytime soon?

Typing this and then getting vaporized in one second? Huh. Makes you think.

Yeah its fucked but its stupid possible.

It doesn't happen because the person who finally pulls it knows they ended everything.


And if that person has the balls to do that shit then think about how fucking high they were to think they'd be safe making that decision.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

This is being blown way out of proportion.

A MOAB is hardly comparable to our nuclear arsenal, and maybe not even that of the originals. The yield statistics are sourced in the past few pages. People are letting the name and the headlines run away from them.

If it was indeed dropped in an isolated area (and out there, 1 mile can be well more than isolated enough, just as places within many countries that include the US), then there likely isn't any civilian casualties that many seem to be drawing a direct comparison to the US strikes in cities and towns/villages. Not every bomb drop kills non-combatants, though obviously that doesn't mean much at all given the casualties that have taken place.

The POTUS may be commander-in-chief, but they aren't involved with every strike, whether by drone, manned aerial units, or ground personnel. Again, don't let the MOAB make you think that this is a super special weapon on par with nuclear payloads or of a similar scale of impact and fallout to where they have the ultimate authorization. Given the isolated nature of the target area and the goal of the mission (collapsing/obliterating the tunnel network), there's little reason to need the POTUS to write off or require briefing before commencement.

As for the first time this weapon has been used, that's likely due to the unique situation that this is set apart from other strikes. The majority of strikes are within or near areas of some sort of population, or near areas of operation. This bomb may also have limited success due to the geography and geology of strike zones. This may have been that one time where it can actually be used to the desired effect with minimal risk.

Compared to the other BS this administration is pulling, this is a whole load of nothing unless we do get word of civilians in the area killed in a negligent manner (could be avoided if different payload used, weren't attempted to be diverted from the zone prior, etc).

Don't overblow things just because Trump is mentioned. Makes it less likely that people will listen.

 

[Kin5290]

Its crazy that this "news" is that America dropped the biggest bomb before a nuke on ISIS.

Lmao, thats just a stupid fucking story.


And yes if you didn't know, for every innocent life slain in the Middle East, there are a handful of people willing to avenge it.

This is, indeed, the motivation for many of the Iraqi and Kurdish militiamen who are taking the fight to ISIS.

 

[bsp]

This is being blown way out of proportion.

A MOAB is hardly comparable to our nuclear arsenal, and maybe not even that of the originals. The yield statistics are sourced in the past few pages. People are letting the name and the headlines run away from them.

If it was indeed dropped in an isolated area (and out there, 1 mile can be well more than isolated enough, just as places within many countries that include the US), then there likely isn't any civilian casualties that many seem to be drawing a direct comparison to the US strikes in cities and towns/villages. Not every bomb drop kills non-combatants, though obviously that doesn't mean much at all given the casualties that have taken place.

The POTUS may be commander-in-chief, but they aren't involved with every strike, whether by drone, manned aerial units, or ground personnel. Again, don't let the MOAB make you think that this is a super special weapon on par with nuclear payloads or of a similar scale of impact and fallout to where they have the ultimate authorization. Given the isolated nature of the target area and the goal of the mission (collapsing/obliterating the tunnel network), there's little reason to need the POTUS to write off or require briefing before commencement.

As for the first time this weapon has been used, that's likely due to the unique situation that this is set apart from other strikes. The majority of strikes are within or near areas of some sort of population, or near areas of operation. This bomb may also have limited success due to the geography and geology of strike zones. This may have been that one time where it can actually be used to the desired effect with minimal risk.

Compared to the other BS this administration is pulling, this is a whole load of nothing unless we do get word of civilians in the area killed in a negligent manner (could be avoided if different payload used, weren't attempted to be diverted from the zone prior, etc).

Don't overblow things just because Trump is mentioned. Makes it less likely that people will listen.

Yep. It sounds like a well-calculated, smart decision to wipe out a very specific target.

 

[TwntyOneTwlv]

No because we could shoot down a missile well before it got to our coast (America). Now I fear for Europe though

We can? What's the current state of America's missile defense system?

 

[Madness]

Yep. It sounds like a well-calculated, smart decision to wipe out a very specific target.

People are overlooking the significance of the first use of a thermobaric high yield bomb in a warzone. So far only the US and Russiahad tested it, now we have a confirmed usage and kill against enemy combatants.

It forever changes the way conventional bombing will proceed. These are not nukes, these are not JDAM's, Bunker bustera, cruise missiles, they did not carpet bomb an area.

This type of technology will be very devastating in terms of taking out targets. It has a large radius, the nature of the explosive itself which moves at supersonic speeds, the chemical mixture and pressure wave literally obliterate matter. It will instantly evaporate anyone hiding in tunnels, buildings, mountains, caverns, anywhere the pressure wave can get to and then cease. There is no radiation, no fallout, no environmental damahe beyond the immediate radius. It will be a new era of warfare. If the US is the first to authorize use, Russia won't be far off. This is not particularly effective against nuclear bunkers, high priority military installations unless they redesign it, but more if they hear terrorists are holed up in some mountainous northern region, they will drop this and it's the end for anything living in the area instantly. They are even developing hand operated versions which will be used to strike tanks, convoys etc.

 

[Bowler]

This is being blown way out of proportion.

A MOAB is hardly comparable to our nuclear arsenal, and maybe not even that of the originals. The yield statistics are sourced in the past few pages. People are letting the name and the headlines run away from them.

If it was indeed dropped in an isolated area (and out there, 1 mile can be well more than isolated enough, just as places within many countries that include the US), then there likely isn't any civilian casualties that many seem to be drawing a direct comparison to the US strikes in cities and towns/villages. Not every bomb drop kills non-combatants, though obviously that doesn't mean much at all given the casualties that have taken place.

The POTUS may be commander-in-chief, but they aren't involved with every strike, whether by drone, manned aerial units, or ground personnel. Again, don't let the MOAB make you think that this is a super special weapon on par with nuclear payloads or of a similar scale of impact and fallout to where they have the ultimate authorization. Given the isolated nature of the target area and the goal of the mission (collapsing/obliterating the tunnel network), there's little reason to need the POTUS to write off or require briefing before commencement.

As for the first time this weapon has been used, that's likely due to the unique situation that this is set apart from other strikes. The majority of strikes are within or near areas of some sort of population, or near areas of operation. This bomb may also have limited success due to the geography and geology of strike zones. This may have been that one time where it can actually be used to the desired effect with minimal risk.

Compared to the other BS this administration is pulling, this is a whole load of nothing unless we do get word of civilians in the area killed in a negligent manner (could be avoided if different payload used, weren't attempted to be diverted from the zone prior, etc).

Don't overblow things just because Trump is mentioned. Makes it less likely that people will listen.

Great post that has been said a few times already, sadly most won't listen, or just ignore what you articulated.

 

[Kin5290]

People are overlooking the significance of the first use of a thermobaric high yield bomb in a warzone. So far only the US and Russiahad tested it, now we have a confirmed usage and kill against enemy combatants.

It forever changes the way conventional bombing will proceed. These are not nukes, these are not JDAM's, Bunker bustera, cruise missiles, they did not carpet bomb an area.

This type of technology will be very devastating in terms of taking out targets. It has a large radius, the nature of the explosive itself which moves at supersonic speeds, the chemical mixture and pressure wave literally obliterate matter. It will instantly evaporate anyone hiding in tunnels, buildings, mountains, caverns, anywhere the pressure wave can get to and then cease. There is no radiation, no fallout, no environmental damahe beyond the immediate radius. It will be a new era of warfare. If the US is the first to authorize use, Russia won't be far off. This is not particularly effective against nuclear bunkers, high priority military installations unless they redesign it, but more if they hear terrorists are holed up in some mountainous northern region, they will drop this and it's the end for anything living in the area instantly. They are even developing hand operated versions which will be used to strike tanks, convoys etc.

Dude, the Russians have thermobaric RPG warheads.

These kinds of weapons have been used since the Vietnam War. They also aren't horribly practical to use, compared to smaller munitions that can be dropped by F-16s and the like, or carried en-masse by dedicated bombers like the B-52 or B-2. They had to carry this bomb in the cargo bay of a C-130 and shove it out the back when they were over the target, which means that this is not a weapon that can be used in an environment with any kind of modern AA or an air force.

Also, like with other massive bombs, using it on targets on the surface is inefficient because a lot of the energy in the explosion goes upwards.

 

[Ac30]

No because we could shoot down a missile well before it got to our coast (America). Now I fear for Europe though

MIRVs pretty much mean that that won't happen. There's no foolproof missile defense net.
No one is getting nuked regardless.

 

[MadJackChurchill]

Blast radius of one mile. When are ISIS ever going to have a one mile wide terror conference in Afghanistan?

Excessive use of force for 'shock and awe' with zero regard for civilian casualties. America.

 

[gamechanger87]

This is being blown way out of proportion.

A MOAB is hardly comparable to our nuclear arsenal, and maybe not even that of the originals. The yield statistics are sourced in the past few pages. People are letting the name and the headlines run away from them.

If it was indeed dropped in an isolated area (and out there, 1 mile can be well more than isolated enough, just as places within many countries that include the US), then there likely isn't any civilian casualties that many seem to be drawing a direct comparison to the US strikes in cities and towns/villages. Not every bomb drop kills non-combatants, though obviously that doesn't mean much at all given the casualties that have taken place.

The POTUS may be commander-in-chief, but they aren't involved with every strike, whether by drone, manned aerial units, or ground personnel. Again, don't let the MOAB make you think that this is a super special weapon on par with nuclear payloads or of a similar scale of impact and fallout to where they have the ultimate authorization. Given the isolated nature of the target area and the goal of the mission (collapsing/obliterating the tunnel network), there's little reason to need the POTUS to write off or require briefing before commencement.

As for the first time this weapon has been used, that's likely due to the unique situation that this is set apart from other strikes. The majority of strikes are within or near areas of some sort of population, or near areas of operation. This bomb may also have limited success due to the geography and geology of strike zones. This may have been that one time where it can actually be used to the desired effect with minimal risk.

Compared to the other BS this administration is pulling, this is a whole load of nothing unless we do get word of civilians in the area killed in a negligent manner (could be avoided if different payload used, weren't attempted to be diverted from the zone prior, etc).

Don't overblow things just because Trump is mentioned. Makes it less likely that people will listen.

I agree with your sentiment. I tried going there before but the people concerned don't listen.

 

[Whom_Gods_Annoy]

But if this had actually been dropped under the Obama administration it would be a cold but brave decision by him and his staff.

Never change Gaf

 

[Kin5290]

I agree with your sentiment. I tried going there before but the people concerned don't listen.

Speaking of which, there are still people who don't read the OP or any of the thread but think that their uninformed freakout post is a smart thing to do.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

Blast radius of one mile. When are ISIS ever going to have a one mile wide terror conference in Afghanistan?

Excessive use of force for 'shock and awe' with zero regard for civilian casualties. America.

One mile isn't as large as it can be made to sound. There were tunnel networks in Vietnam that likely dwarfed a mile.

Do we have estimated specs of this particular tunnel network, or if civilian casualties were even a factor?

Also would like to highlight this.who think this is just a Trump administration move:

The officials said the planning to use the bomb had been under way for months during the Obama administration and that the bomb had been in Afghanistan for months.

One official described the use of the MOAB as "the right weapon, the right target, and the desired effect.”

Which is quite in line with what we know of the target area. This wasn't a spur of the moment decision, nor does it set a wide precedent in usage.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

But if this had actually been dropped under the Obama administration it would be a cold but brave decision by him and his staff.

Never change Gaf

The fuck are you talking about

 

[thefragrance]

Did the media criticize Clinton on being a warhawk? I don't generally watch the news, but I've always gotten the impression that the mainstream media loves war no matter who's waging it and the anti-war sentiment leveled at Clinton was more of an internet commenter thing.

Not sure about the 'Hillary will start ww3' that Trump supporters mindlessly parroted, but many left leaning publications casually threw the term 'hawk' in reference to Hillary during the campaign. One of the articles that pop up when looking for Hillary + hawk is this one:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html

With Trump in office and everything that's developing now in Syria and NK, these articles and opeds have become part of the farce

 

[louiedog]

Not sure about the 'Hillary will start ww3' that Trump supporters mindlessly parroted, but many left leaning publications casually threw the term 'hawk' in reference to Hillary during the campaign. One of the articles that pop up when looking for Hillary + hawk is this one:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html

With Trump in office and everything that's developing now in Syria and NK, these articles and opeds have become part of the farce

 

[Dopus]

Not sure about the 'Hillary will start ww3' that Trump supporters mindlessly parroted, but many left leaning publications casually threw the term 'hawk' in reference to Hillary during the campaign. One of the articles that pop up when looking for Hillary + hawk is this one:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html

With Trump in office and everything that's developing now in Syria and NK, these articles and opeds have become part of the farce

Not really, because we know what her positions have been when she was in government regarding Iran, Libya, Syria. I mean look at her position now on Syria.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

Did the media criticize Clinton on being a warhawk? I don't generally watch the news, but I've always gotten the impression that the mainstream media loves war no matter who's waging it and the anti-war sentiment leveled at Clinton was more of an internet commenter thing.

As already mentioned, Clinton was called a warhawk in liberal media. Her thoughts on military action had her considered to be more of a moderate.

 

[neurosisxeno]

We're going to be in some bullshit war by the end of the year right?

At this rate? By the end of the month.

But if this had actually been dropped under the Obama administration it would be a cold but brave decision by him and his staff.

Never change Gaf

This is the same place that almost universally opposes the idea that dropping the Atomic Bombs in WWII was necessary, and a majority of users said Drone Strikes were the number one black mark on Obama's record. So somehow I doubt that.

 

[Drifters]

We literally are on the 4 step program with Trump right now and I would place us at about step #3.

1) Elect Donald Trump as President
2) Do a lot of crazy shit in the first 100 days
3) ????
4) Profit?

 

[Dirca]

We're going to be in some bullshit war by the end of the month right?

FTFY

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

This is the 16th year of the US involvement in Afghanistan, with no identifiable definition of victory in sight, and all of you are worried about the size of some bomb?

 

[Poor GRIMES]

This is the 16th year of the US involvement in Afghanistan, with no identifiable definition of victory in sight, and all of you are worried about the size of some bomb?

Right?

We've been at war for ages already 😂

 

[Madness]

Dude, the Russians have thermobaric RPG warheads.

These kinds of weapons have been used since the Vietnam War. They also aren't horribly practical to use, compared to smaller munitions that can be dropped by F-16s and the like, or carried en-masse by dedicated bombers like the B-52 or B-2. They had to carry this bomb in the cargo bay of a C-130 and shove it out the back when they were over the target, which means that this is not a weapon that can be used in an environment with any kind of modern AA or an air force.

Also, like with other massive bombs, using it on targets on the surface is inefficient because a lot of the energy in the explosion goes upwards.

This is the first time I have ever heard someone use such a high yield themorbaric bomb in active warfare. The Soviets and Russians have long developed this technology and there are reports thermobaric weaponry was used but no thermobaric bomb this large has ever been used in warfare before.

It is unconventional because it is still being rapidly developed. Of course this isn't meant for a nuclear facility or a hardened military bunker, but is highly successful in non-nuclear deadly force against combatants. Why carpet bomb with several dumb guided bombs when you can drop a massive ordinance thermobaric bomb and literally evaporate all life within that large radius especially in mountainous or cavernous areas where cruise missiles pretty useless.

 

[MikeDown]

If it is as it is being told to us then I really don't have a problem with using such ordnance in limited and strategic locations.

 

[FreedomFighter]

Aw yeah, look at all that death and destruction, baby! Dozens screaming for their little lives!

Ladies and gentlemen, I can't imagine a more awe-inspiring sight than this weapon invented specifically for the annihilation of human life doing what it was made for! THIS is the moment where Donald Trump finally became president! God Bless America, Fly United, Drink Pepsi!

Perfect.

 

[Chichikov]

No because we could shoot down a missile well before it got to our coast (America). Now I fear for Europe though

The US has never possessed an effective defense against serious nuclear strike during the cold war. Nor does it possess such system now.

 

[Kadayi]

This is being blown way out of proportion.

A MOAB is hardly comparable to our nuclear arsenal, and maybe not even that of the originals. The yield statistics are sourced in the past few pages. People are letting the name and the headlines run away from them.

If it was indeed dropped in an isolated area (and out there, 1 mile can be well more than isolated enough, just as places within many countries that include the US), then there likely isn't any civilian casualties that many seem to be drawing a direct comparison to the US strikes in cities and towns/villages. Not every bomb drop kills non-combatants, though obviously that doesn't mean much at all given the casualties that have taken place.

The POTUS may be commander-in-chief, but they aren't involved with every strike, whether by drone, manned aerial units, or ground personnel. Again, don't let the MOAB make you think that this is a super special weapon on par with nuclear payloads or of a similar scale of impact and fallout to where they have the ultimate authorization. Given the isolated nature of the target area and the goal of the mission (collapsing/obliterating the tunnel network), there's little reason to need the POTUS to write off or require briefing before commencement.

As for the first time this weapon has been used, that's likely due to the unique situation that this is set apart from other strikes. The majority of strikes are within or near areas of some sort of population, or near areas of operation. This bomb may also have limited success due to the geography and geology of strike zones. This may have been that one time where it can actually be used to the desired effect with minimal risk.

Compared to the other BS this administration is pulling, this is a whole load of nothing unless we do get word of civilians in the area killed in a negligent manner (could be avoided if different payload used, weren't attempted to be diverted from the zone prior, etc).

Don't overblow things just because Trump is mentioned. Makes it less likely that people will listen.

Top post.

This notion that a MOAB is somehow a presidential decision point, versus a military one is ridiculous. From a strategic perspective, in this situation it's likely right tool for the job.

To paraphrase Bill Hicks, the MOAB might be the biggest bomb after a Nuke, but there's a real big drop off in terms of actual damage versus the latter.

 

[TarNaru33]

No because we could shoot down a missile well before it got to our coast (America). Now I fear for Europe though

Could doesn't mean it will happen, our missile defense system is not to the point where we can 100% say a nuke would be shot down before reaching U.S and the only way such a defense system would work is if it was near 100% accurate at shooting a missile down.

Just think about it, if a general tells you we have 50% chance at shooting down a nuclear missile before it hit San Francisco or Los Angeles (major economic and population centers), would you really authorize anything that might cause the city's destruction?

We can? What's the current state of America's missile defense system?

It isn't at the state that guy is making it seem.

 

[wesleyshark]

CNN just showed video of the bomb striking the ground. Looks like the target area was in a sort of small, but deep valley region.

 

[AmyS]

On CNN they just showed footage of the actual MOAB blast. Edit: Beaten! ^

 

[wesleyshark]

I can see why that target was right for this bomb. The mountains surrounding it contained a lot of the blast.

 

[Jackpot]

This is being blown way out of proportion.

A MOAB is hardly comparable to our nuclear arsenal, and maybe not even that of the originals. The yield statistics are sourced in the past few pages. People are letting the name and the headlines run away from them.

If it was indeed dropped in an isolated area (and out there, 1 mile can be well more than isolated enough, just as places within many countries that include the US), then there likely isn't any civilian casualties that many seem to be drawing a direct comparison to the US strikes in cities and towns/villages. Not every bomb drop kills non-combatants, though obviously that doesn't mean much at all given the casualties that have taken place.

The POTUS may be commander-in-chief, but they aren't involved with every strike, whether by drone, manned aerial units, or ground personnel. Again, don't let the MOAB make you think that this is a super special weapon on par with nuclear payloads or of a similar scale of impact and fallout to where they have the ultimate authorization. Given the isolated nature of the target area and the goal of the mission (collapsing/obliterating the tunnel network), there's little reason to need the POTUS to write off or require briefing before commencement.

As for the first time this weapon has been used, that's likely due to the unique situation that this is set apart from other strikes. The majority of strikes are within or near areas of some sort of population, or near areas of operation. This bomb may also have limited success due to the geography and geology of strike zones. This may have been that one time where it can actually be used to the desired effect with minimal risk.

Compared to the other BS this administration is pulling, this is a whole load of nothing unless we do get word of civilians in the area killed in a negligent manner (could be avoided if different payload used, weren't attempted to be diverted from the zone prior, etc).

Don't overblow things just because Trump is mentioned. Makes it less likely that people will listen.

I concur.

But hysteria seems to be the name of the game.

 

[Donthizz#]

looks like U.S military leaders finally found out they have a child in the white house.

 

[wesleyshark]

They have an ex general on who said that the main reason they've never used this bomb was because there's never been a good enough opportunity to do so, until now. No civilians. No collateral damage.

This was ripe for what the MOAB is meant to do.

 

[AmyS]

Footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RbDrBGklfg

 

[jchap]

Guess we can put the 1 mile lethal radius to bed:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39598046

A member of an anti-IS group in the area who gave his name only as Mohammad told the BBC he was at a checkpoint 1km from the bomb strike.
He said: "We were eating dinner when we heard a big explosion, came out of my room and saw a mountain of fire... the area was full of light with the fire of the bomb."
He said all civilians had left the area since the start of the anti-IS operation.

 

[Ekdrm2d1]

On CNN they just showed footage of the actual MOAB blast. Edit: Beaten! ^

Damn

 

[E92 M3]

Hopefully one day ISIS is wiped off the face of the planet.

 

[Always-honest]

I watched test-footage of a bomb like that. Crazy thing is i wasn't all that impressed...
It's a horrible destructive weapon, don't get me wrong. But the gap between this and an atomic bomb is insane.

 

[Jezbollah]

Guess we can put the 1 mile lethal radius to bed:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39598046

You need to consider the topology of the land into that discussion.

 

[Kurdel]

Maybe you could find issue with the fact that the White House refuses to say whether or not Trump knew about or approved the bombing before is occurred.

Why would that mean anything? You think the army consults the president on every weapons detail, and he picks from a menu?

This was clearly a PR stunt from the US army, knowing it would also please Trump.

 

[Whompa02]

So whats the death count? I hate Trump but Isis can fuck off as well.

 

[wesleyshark]

So whats the death count? I hate Trump but Isis can fuck off as well.

36 Islamic State fighters. 0 civilians.

 

[Whompa02]

36 Islamic State fighters. 0 civilians.

Thanks. That seems small. Guessing this is just the beginning.

 

[Kurdel]

Thanks. That seems small. Guessing this is just the beginning.

The army have been waiting like 13 years for a proper target for this weapon, I doubt they will start spamming 16 million dollar bombs that have to be dropped via cargo plane.