L0st Id3ntity
Member
How did they count them to 36 so quickly lol. Does this bomb even leave bodies.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
CNN: US drops its largest conventional bomb (MOAB) on ISIS target in Afghanistan
- Thread starter RoKKeR
- Start date
- Status
AcademicSaucer
Member
Both of them don't give a fuck tho, the US and Russia kill a lot of civilians every month in Syria.
crackhead_bob
Member
MOAB sounds like something out of Red Faction Guerrilla.
Wouldn't that bomb mess up the bodies to the point where you can't count them?
Not necessarily.
Most likely blast injury, because like all explosions it depends how far away you are, indoors or not, etc.
Shrapnel, pressure, heat, lots of stuff at different ranges.
If he was 1km away, that would mean he was 0.62 miles away.
Patrick Bateman
Member
German Zeit says the death toll has risen to 94 IS-members. No civilian casulties:
http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2017-04/moab-afghanistan-tote-angaben
Translation: 94 military aged males, no women, children or elderly.
Sunster
Member
They probably know who and how many were in the area
michaelius
Banned
Better scale without forgetting the "kilo" like many news agencies did, lol. "Largest non-nuclear bomb" makes it sound like there's anything close to equivalency, but it's still worlds apart, and not even factoring in radiation etc.
People are freaking about about the size of this bomb but RAF used 12000 pounds Tallboys in WWII
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallboy_(bomb)
FreedomFighter
Member
That perhaps, and perhaps Karzai has a point about using his country as testing grounds for armaments. But l also think this is a display to China, Iran, Russia, and DPRK - a "hey, look what we can do! Do what we say or else!" sorta thing. It may be one or some combination of all of those.
Anyways, US getting way too belligerent and bellicose; as if it has something to prove now. In addition to tons of civilian casualties, US now even killing it's allies.
Time to just admit defeat in Afghanistan and leave. Dropping MOABs is not gonna defeat the Taliban or ISIS and reports suggest the former control more territory now than they did 2002. Stop spending hundreds of millions a month just to save face. So stupid.
And the greatest irony, the same insurgent trap they set up for the Soviets is virtually the same one they're stuck in now. Are we really just fighting to protect our hubris at this point?
Chittagong
Gold Member
Phenomenal success. Massive respect to US army.
Audioboxer
Member
Sounds like success, to be honest. At least compared to many other strikes/bomb drops that end up wiping out civilians.
FreedomFighter
Member
Unless you live in Flint. But l get your point.
US doesn't give a shit either and we have several examples in just 2017 alone. Bolded is completely untrue. Can't just keep writing chronic habits off as "collateral damage" or "accidents" .
Sunster
Member
American exceptionalism is ingrained in us. So we think and say things like "unlike other countries, US cares" by default.
Wenger'sBakedBaguettes
Member
Spot on when it comes to testing grounds. Much of the colonized developing world was always a testing ground for weapons by the white man. If we only look at the greater MENA region then Libya was a testing ground for aerial warfare by the Italians, Iraq was the equivalent for Britain, US using depleted uranium in Iraq which has seen birth defects and cancer rise among the population there and god knows how many they've tried since 2003. Russia has has tried countless of new weapons in Syria as well.
Pretty much, american exceptionalism is pretty much in the genes at this point. If you're a victim of the death and destruction spread by US then comments like that are quite insulting and disgusting.
TheRedSnifit
Member
Depleted uranium was used in the former Yugoslavia well before Iraq.
The World Health Organization did a pretty exhaustive study of it during that conflict and found that it didn't pose any more of a health hazard than lead and tungsten (the other materials used in bullets).
My mum and dad being doctors in the Iraq war saw a massive increase in birth defects after US used uranium in Iraq. In the first Gulf War.
Then they did it again:
And used white phosphorous, and bombed the shit out of civilians in Fallujah.
Then they did it again:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/19/us-depleted-uranium-weapons-civilian-areas-iraq
And used white phosphorous, and bombed the shit out of civilians in Fallujah.
Wenger'sBakedBaguettes
Member
Note that WHO published a newer study in 2013 on the effects DU had on Iraq. Despite being a joint study with Iraq's MOH it directly contradicted the statistics of the MOH which pointed out rates of birth defects being significantly higher in areas bombed by US & Allies when comparing pre-2003 data with current data. The study didn't even look at medical records in Iraqi hospitals reported by Iraqi doctors....you know the actual doctors living in the country who are on the field and report the effects first-hand. On this topic I'd believe IMOH anyday before a WHO.
You also had medical journals, academic researchers, human rights groups who all challenged the credibility of the study, finding significant flaws in the conclusions of the report. The study even contradicts those of HRG who did investigations in heavy DU-effected cities in Iraq. To give an example here's what Tokyo-based HRN said:
"... an extraordinary situation of congenital birth defects in both nature and quantity. The investigation demonstrated a significant rise of these health consequences in the period following the war... An overview of scientific literature relating to the effects of uranium and heavy metals associated with munitions used in the 2003 Iraq War and occupation, together with potential exposure pathways, strongly suggest that environmental contamination resulting from combat during the Iraq War may be playing a significant role in the observed rate of birth defects."
DU is already known to lead to cancer, to be a genotoxin and to lead to birth defects from its exposure and radiation. Some studies even suggest it might interfere with a fetus.
In regards to WHO it's hardly independent since it has political pressure on it by US/UK:
- US/UK reluctant to disclose where their DU employment is.
- The study you linked was around the time when one of the members of the editorial board recommended new research on DU as a genotoxin. WHO ignored this despite research from Dof on subjects who had ingested DU already showing it as a genotoxin.
- Same author having the publication of another study on the possible link between DU and significant increase of birth defects blocked by WHO.
- Former UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq saying WHO aborted missions to conduct on-spot assesments on the effects of US/UK DU employment in Southern Iraq.
- WHO refusing to release their data for transparent analysis. The even delayed the study they made one year after it was completed.
- US pressuring Iraqi govt. to not publish too much info or speculation on the topic.
- US/UK blocking requests for more intl. studies of DU in war zones saying no more studies on it is needed because the studies that exist are already enough. This despite the fact of them citing studies that deals with DU radiation and not DU exposure.
With the political pressure on WHO by US/UK on more recent studies in Iraq or the one you linked to, and them blocking further studies on it I couldn't care less about WHO who lacks credibility on this topic and the attempt to cover this up by the white man.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...health-organisation-iraq-war-depleted-uranium
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-c...ghts/iraqi-birth-defects-cover_b_4046442.html
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/09/2013915141726303111.html
edit: also see the effects from DU in the first gulf war as pointed out by the poster above me.
The US certainly gives a shit about civilian casualties, even if just for show for the international audience, and thats why the middle east is not just a giant crater. I see what youre saying but youre way off, our military really does try and operate by the rules. We literally had the leader of ISIS in captivity and let him go on good behavior... That being said its like a company where there are bad apples except compounded by the fact that its war. No idea how uranium enriched ammunition is not outlawed by geneva though
Jack The Nipper
Banned
there would obvious be non fighters there, not sure how you account for ones that arent there anyways
not even sure how you count a person who is there regardless... Even if it's by clothes or what not a non fighter can be wearing their gear. Rather pointless numbers imo
not even sure how you count a person who is there regardless... Even if it's by clothes or what not a non fighter can be wearing their gear. Rather pointless numbers imo
Insane Metal
Member
Wonderful. Good job.
luckygodzilla
Member
According to CNN four ISIS commanders were caught up in the blast, and the possibility exists that more casualties could be found as they continue to clear out the caves.
So long as the civilian death count remains at zero, all I really have to say about it is good riddance.
All of what you guys are saying is basically emotional rubbish. I won't say U.S cares immensely about civilian deaths, but the fact it tries at all to mitigate it, means that it absolutely have some care of it.
U.S has called off many airstrikes because of risk of too high civilian deaths. The example also is in U.S strikes compared to Russian and Syrian ones... despite starting their bombing campaign later, Russia have killed more civilians than the coalition.
I don't see what is wrong or worrying about people correcting people's belief of what U.S would use a bomb like this on. It is the biggest conventional bomb in U.S arsenal while on top of it being the first time it being used, why would U.S risk high civilian casualties especially knowing it would be highly publicized?
Bombs have their use and this one was used with that in mind.
The RAF actually dropped 42 22,000lb 'Grand Slam' bombs towards the end of the war in Europe. But that was just the weight of the bomb, the TNT equivalent was 6.5 tons, the GBU-43 TNT equivalent is 11 tons.
The Little Boy nuke was 15 kilotons TNT equivalent.
TheRedSnifit
Member
Nobody contests that it's poisonous, but it's poisonous because it's a heavy metal (see also: Lead, tungsten), not because it's radioactive. There are probably dozens of things in your house more radiative than DU.
It's poisonous because it's a heavy metal, as is lead (used in most bullets) and tungsten (the alternative to DU for AP ammo). In fact, tungsten is even more poisonous. Lead and tungsten rounds are both linked to birth defects and cancer as well. DU does tend to burn when it hits things (which is the point of using it) so it does get in the air more than the alternatives, but inhaling lead or tungsten wouldn't be any better for you.
Regardless, the only peer-reviewed sources I've seen on this topic are those WHO papers. If you have something beyond Guardian articles that examine the effects of DU in Basra in 2001 when the war did not start until 2003 (lol) and Al Jazeera, feel free to send them to me.
- Status