• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jfkgoblue

Member
kayzai said:
This is sounds like a mega version of Barrel Bombs!

How are Civilians not going to get caught up in this?

Trump the irrational is responsible for ANY civilian deaths.
Click to expand...
Its highly unlikely that any civilians were hit. Afghanistan is very remote without anybody around for miles and miles. The only way it did was if a nomad was really unlucky and in the area, but the chances of that are slim.
lawnchair said:
i like this one:

"This thing weighs 10 ton. You could drop 10 ton of anything onto a target and it will destroy the target.Ten ton of toilet paper will destroy a target...."
Click to expand...
Lol some people...
 
Z

Zophar

Member
I don't think I will ever forgive people who justified letting Clinton lose because Trump would be "better" at foreign policy. You goddamn dense motherfuckers.
 
F

FTF

Member
Whoa...that's a huge blast radius, the civilian casualties I fear could be high so really need to see what the isis to civilian casualty #s are.

Like most others though, I have no faith in anyone associated with this administration, etc.
 
T

TwntyOneTwlv

Member
Not that this isn't a bad thing, because it definitely is. But this bomb isn't even remotely comparable to a nuclear bomb. According to the Wikipedia article on the MOAB, its yield is 11 tons. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was approximately 1,400 times more powerful than that.

Even so, what the fuck does President Fuck-stick think he's doing?
 
E

Electric Eye

Banned
Trump probably wanted to use a nuke but after having a sit down he settled for the MOAB. He's the type of simpleton that thinks tossing all the bombs at his enemies will win him a war and he'll get a victory parade like in the movies kinda like W.
 
B

bananafactory

Banned
I'm not one to defend Trump but this is an honest question - are civilian casualties and collateral damage not inevitable in warfare?

Again that's not defending this particular action, just speaking broadly.
 
E

Ekdrm2d1

Member
So the Alt-Right doesn't want to start wars and to start bombing nations..

Will they appreciate this ISIS target though?
 
N

Netherscourge

Banned
Wolf Blitzer is probably begging CNN to let him cover the explosion stuff.

He was genetically engineered to cover war and explosions. Fires and smoke are OK too.
 
L

louiedog

Member
darkness_s said:
Just to get a better idea of the blast radius of this bomb, this is how it looks over NYC:
Click to expand...

Goodbye Chicago Loop.

152daf1436.jpg
 
TheZink

TheZink

Member
FTF said:
Whoa...that's a huge blast radius, the civilian casualties I fear could be high so really need to see what the isis to civilian casualty #s are.

Like most others though, I have no faith in anyone associated with this administration, etc.
Click to expand...
It's been reported they dropped it in a remote area of tunnels isis has been using
 
K

Kyzer

Banned
RustyNails said:
Guys remember when they said it was Hillary who was more a warhawk?
Click to expand...

this is so irrelevant but if you really wanna bring it up she literally agreed with his strike in syria and said we should have done more than that. theres really no reason to bring it up anyways

its the far right and far left who dont agree with intervention in syria, ironically
 
M

MattKeil

BIGTIME TV MOGUL #2
Kyzer said:
its the desert...its even more empty than MGSV would have you think

im not sure how many ISIS we even killed
Click to expand...

Probably not many, considering the MOAB is an airburst bomb and not a bunker buster. The MOAB creates a massive firestorm, but using it against underground tunnels doesn't seem like what it's made for. I guess the idea could be that the tunnels are a soft enough target that it could penetrate and send the firestorm through the tunnels, burning everyone and everything out.
 
U

UnObtainium17

Member
Kyzer said:
its the desert...its even more empty than MGSV would have you think

im not sure how many ISIS we even killed
Click to expand...
Idk about that. Isis doesn't seem to be the type of people to just huddle in a small circle in a middle of a nowhere.. achin district according to Wikipedia has a population of 95k in 2006. Was the home of mujaheddin too during the soviet occupation.
 
K

Kinyou

Member
lawnchair said:
i like this one:

"This thing weighs 10 ton. You could drop 10 ton of anything onto a target and it will destroy the target.Ten ton of toilet paper will destroy a target...."
Click to expand...

"Weapon manufacturers hate him!

How one man's simple trick saved the US military billions"
 
K

Kyzer

Banned
UnObtainium17 said:
Idk about that. Isis doesn't seem to be the type of people to just huddle in a small circle in a middle of a nowhere.. achin district according to Wikipedia has a population of 95k in 2006. Was the home of mujaheddin too during the soviet occupation.
Click to expand...

there was a tunnel system that we targeted with the MOAB, I think that was the main goal
MattKeil said:
Probably not many, considering the MOAB is an airburst bomb and not a bunker buster. The MOAB creates a massive firestorm, but using it against underground tunnels doesn't seem like what it's made for. I guess the idea could be that the tunnels are a soft enough target that it could penetrate and send the firestorm through the tunnels, burning everyone and everything out.
Click to expand...

LT. General on CNN said its exactly good for this kind of thing and was developed not only for saddam targets but to take out remote caves
 
J

JHoNNy1OoO

Member
bananafactory said:
I'm not one to defend Trump but this is an honest question - are civilian casualties and collateral damage not inevitable in warfare?

Again that's not defending this particular action, just speaking broadly.
Click to expand...

Yes innocents will die in war. You try to minimize them however. Using an ordinance with a 1 mile radius of destruction instead of more precise weaponry pretty much says you don't give a fuck about who you kill.
 
K

kess

Member
Argue with the rightest of the right, and they'll tell you there is no such thing as collateral damage.

So much for surgical strikes, when you can denude the countryside just to make a point.
 
V

Vixdean

Member
If the idea was to destroy a tunnel system with one strike then I guess that makes sense. Honestly I could see Obama prohibiting use of these things just for the optics, even if it made military sense.
 
A

A Fish Aficionado

I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
hobblygobbly said:
Yeah they had to reduce it or else their bombers would get caught up in it if my memory serves correct.
Click to expand...
Tsar Bomba could have theoretically yielded as much as 100 megatons, but it would have resulted in a dangerous level of nuclear fallout (approximately 25% of all fallout produced since the invention of nuclear weapons in 1945). Additionally, the delivery plane would not have had sufficient time to retreat to a safe distance. Therefore, to minimize nuclear fallout, the third stage incorporated a lead tamper instead of a uranium-238 fusion tamper. It has been speculated that the second stage used this method as well.
Click to expand...
http://www.atomicheritage.org/history/tsar-bomba
 
E

e_i

Member
I wonder why the news media has been slow to report this. Huffingtonpost should have a screaming headline right now.
 
B

bananafactory

Banned
JHoNNy1OoO said:
Yes innocents will die in war. You try to minimize them however. Using an ordinance with a 1 mile radius of destruction instead of more precise weaponry pretty much says you don't give a fuck about who you kill.
Click to expand...

Right.

Just clarifying that people understand that as awful as it is innocents will die. Not disagreeing that this seems like an irresponsible move.
 
P

Piggus

Member
Zophar said:
I don't think I will ever forgive people who justified letting Clinton lose because Trump would be "better" at foreign policy. You goddamn dense motherfuckers.
Click to expand...

Neither will I, but do you actually think Clinton wouldn't have given the go-ahead here? If you have an opportunity to take out a bunch of ISIS tunnels out in the middle of nowhere, you take it. Any president would have okayed this.

bananafactory said:
Right.

Just clarifying that people understand that as awful as it is innocents will die. Not disagreeing that this seems like an irresponsible move.
Click to expand...

How can it be called an irresponsible move when we don't even know where it was used?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Guardian: Israel asked US for green light to bomb nuclear sites in Iran
3
836
Zapages replied
  • Locked
US says 5k lb bunker busters aren't enough - in market for 30 ton variant
2
62
3K
Phoenix replied
  • Locked
Halo 3 Story Line?
9
964
BMAN replied
Top Bottom