Largest Non-Nuclear Bomb in world dropped on Afghanistan

kona

MysticMonk wrote: »

Ah,i suppose you'd need something with more penetrative power to get through the roof?
But i do remember hearing about these in Iraq,what is their proper role?

The idea is to suck the oxygen out of the area and suffocate the scum.

And sort of physical maiming of them would be a bonus.

MysticMonk

PREG1967 wrote: »

psychological

Not if it misses.

People during the London blitz who survived didn't exactly lose the will to fight

PREG1967

MysticMonk wrote: »

Not if it misses.

People during the London blitz who survived didn't exactly lose the will to fight

shows superiority, its a guided bomb, gps makes sure it doesnt miss, who mentioned missing?

MysticMonk

kona wrote: »

The idea is to suck the oxygen out of the area and suffocate the scum.

And sort of physical maiming of them would be a bonus.

A similarsized napalm and white phosphorus bomb would've been good too

Jawgap

Gatling wrote: »

Not really they don't use them to smash bunkers or bunker complexes due to their nature , they for the most part were used to clear large mine fields and as psychological effects

They use the Massive Ordinance Penetrator for buried bunkers.....bigger again than the MOAB.

MysticMonk

PREG1967 wrote: »

shows superiority, its a guided bomb, gpd makes sure it doesnt miss, who mentioned missing?

Well if it hits you it will kill you..That's not a psychological effect..Being blown to bits is very physical.

PREG1967

MysticMonk wrote: »

Well if it hits you it will kill you..That's not a psychological effect..Being blown to bits is very physical.

its meant to effect all of the enemies army psychologically and kill who it hits directly :pac: obviously

Gatling

Jawgap wrote: »

They use the Massive Ordinance Penetrator for buried bunkers.....bigger again than the MOAB.

Technically it's smaller it's dropped B2 bombers where​ the Moab can only be dropped out of a C130 rear ramp

Jawgap

MysticMonk wrote: »

A similarsized napalm and white phosphorus bomb would've been good too

Napalm is pretty much banned and wouldn't have the same impact as a fuel/air bomb (which is essentially what the MOAB) is.

Likewise "Wiley Pete" scorches and like napalm has a low over pressure when it detonates. Both are terrifying in confined spaces, but getting they're limited in their blast radius and the challenge is to get them into those spaces.

ricero

The donald kicking isis ass and putting them in body bags yet the liberals still complain.

I welcome this. Its time we destroy isis and not let them grow like obama did

MysticMonk

PREG1967 wrote: »

its meant to effect all of the enemies army psychologically and kill who it hits directly :pac: obviously

I still think they should've added a bit of white phosphorus

Pac1Man

It looks like one of those fat oversized pencils that were around in the 90s.

Impressive looking device to be fair.

MysticMonk

MysticMonk wrote: »

I still think they should've added a bit of white phosphorus

Was this bomb strike followed up with infantry or cavalry i wonder, surely they'd need to mop up afterwards and take survivors back for interrogation

A Little Pony

America is getting what they voted for. They voted for a tougher President than Obama, a different direction on foreign policy naturally when you have someone with the aggression of Trump. I have to say I have agreed with much of his foreign policy decisions so far.

PREG1967

MysticMonk wrote: »

I still think they should've added a bit of white phosphorus

Its about the length, diameter, warhead and penetration,rather than any white phosphorus that might come out of it

Jawgap

Gatling wrote: »

Technically it's smaller it's dropped B2 bombers where​ the Moab can only be dropped out of a C130 rear ramp

Yeah, the MOP is physically smaller because it has to be carried by an intruding aircraft and it relies on a kinetic energy effect to penetrate (up to 20m of concrete buried under 70m of earth) before detonating (not unlike myself ).....but the energy yield is greater because a denser explosive is used, probably something like Octol.

Allah snackbar

Wrong thread

Beyondgone

The follow-up weapon - the MILF - Massive Implosion Low Fatalities - is designed to suck terrorists in and then spit them out. Without any strings attached or collateral damage. The Hawks have a severe hard-on for the MILF as it offers a high-end solution to the age old problem of going soft on terrorists.

Enough blast porn?

Pugzilla

MOAB is not the world's most powerful non nuclear bomb, that would be the Russian's FOAB, Father of all Bombs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_All_Bombs

MOAB isn't designed to penetrate hardened targets. It's for shock and awe.

Beyondgone

Pugzilla wrote: »

MOAB is not the world's most powerful non nuclear bomb, that would be the Russian's FOAB, Father of all Bombs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_All_Bombs

MOAB isn't designed to penetrate hardened targets. It's for shock and awe.

That was covered ages ago. We're all experts on MOABS, MOPs, FOABS, MILFS, OAPS, hardened penetration, air bursts and stiffened weaponry at this stage.

BorneTobyWilde

Awwww

Capt'n Midnight

Gatling wrote: »

America​ used smaller Daisy cutters in Vietnam bombs and russia dropped numerous of their version in Grozny and other Chechnya cities ,

The Americans were using similar weapons in Afghanistan back in 2001, with the 15,000 pound BLU-82 which only cost $27,000 each vs $16 million for the MOAB
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/nov/07/afghanistan.terrorism6


The economics are insane. A million dollar bill weigh one tonne. This bomb cost more than it's weight in dollar bills. So this is a PR stunt. No new capability. Just more of the same.

TheQuietFella

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/us-drops-largest-nonnuclear-bomb-on-afghanistan-21000lb-moab-used-for-first-time-35621197.html

This world is a crazy place. Do they even give a damn for the innocent people who happen to live in that area

Should have dropped a nuclear bomb and that would have softened a few coughs!

Capt'n Midnight

And then there's this,

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/pentagon-plan-for-make-love-not-war-with-gay-bomb-1.1210320

The Pentagon has admitted that it considered a proposal to love-bomb enemy troops with an aphrodisiac that would turn them gay and encourage uncontrolled sexual activity. Chemical weapons researchers believed that, after being sprayed with the chemical, enemy soldiers would be so busy making love in mass gay orgies that they would stop fighting.

SEPT 23 1989

MysticMonk wrote: »

I still think they should've added a bit of white phosphorus

That would have been a nice touch

Iceing sugar on the cake

Klinger

At last, a POTUS who walks the walk, unlike the last useless apologist.

Kirby

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

Yes, that's right. I suppose that will deal with all the baddies. And damn all those civilians who happen to live near Achin district of the Nangarhar province in eastern Afghanistan.

The moment an enemy realises you balk at the notion of civilian casualties, they stick a dozen families in every hideout they have.

It's not pleasant and you try to minimize it but collateral damage is the cost of waging war in this way.

Yourself isit

A Little Pony wrote: »

America is getting what they voted for. They voted for a tougher President than Obama, a different direction on foreign policy naturally when you have someone with the aggression of Trump. I have to say I have agreed with much of his foreign policy decisions so far.

So you agree with trump attacking assad for bombing civilians, and for bombing civilians.

Depp

Billy86 wrote: »

There is no falsehood that he ran on "bombing the sh*t" out of the middle east, or on the fact that drone strikes have gone up by more than 400% since he took office, these are facts. Now while I doubt he sought out the specific bomb because the guy isn't exactly educated on much of any of the aspects of his job, my reckoning is that someone high up in the army suggested it knowing how eager he is for any possible distractions in recent weeks, and he more than happily jumped on the opportunity having seen the 'success' of the Syrian attack on that front.

The bomb has been around for 14 years, yet gets set off in Trump's first 100 days which says all it needs to say. Still, it should keep the Russia talk off his back over Easter weekend, and that's all Trump cares about - Trump.

Just read a report this attack has been in planning for months and required zero congressional or presidential approval as it was in an active warzone. The notion trump had any part in it is complete nonsense. Just to clarify, I'm not saying this to defend trump, I'm calling you out for telling lies.

Idbatterim

Beyondgone wrote: »

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Blowing up a few mountians didn't make much measurable difference against the Taliban in 2001

The whole point of "so called" IS is that it's everywhere and nowhere at the same time. Big bombs are a waste of money in an age of asymmetrical warfare.

300 million too. Although that might be a bit like the Gards "street value" estimates on drugs seizures. There's probably a bomb-scientist somewhere in the States going "300 million..what? wait, we only got 500k for it??"

Followed by some Airforce bean counter standing in front of an accounts committee a year later going "Yes, erm, honest, it was 300 million..:o...that 300 million"small hole in the books" we couldn't account for last year...this was it.."

The us defence budget is $639,000,000,000. Doubt they will miss 300,000,000!

netherlands15

should have dropped it in west berlin tbh

Beyondgone

Idbatterim wrote: »

The us defence budget is $639,000,000,000. Doubt they will miss 300,000,000!

Shame the fcukers plead poverty when it comes to peoples health issues,. eh?

mikeoneilly

ricero wrote: »

The donald kicking isis ass and putting them in body bags yet the liberals still complain.

I welcome this. Its time we destroy isis and not let them grow like obama did

More will take their place

Depp

mikeoneilly wrote: »

More will take their place

That sounds like a threat almost :D

Hank Scorpio

ISIS, a great bunch of lads.

Digital Solitude

MysticMonk wrote: »

A similarsized napalm and white phosphorus bomb would've been good too

Would it have been as effective as literally eating all the oxygen in a cave system? Probably not to be fair.

Have to agree with can't make an omelette without breaking eggs sentiment, I've had a gander at the region on Google Maps and it looks empty as fook, ISIS have been the main men there for a long while and it seems to have been a base for them in Afghanistan. Collateral damage can go and ****e if they got some of the bastards, as well as munitions or supplies.

Digital Solitude

kona wrote: »

Eh it's not a nuclear weapon. It doesn't have the components for a nuclear weapons.

It's a massive bomb.

Eh "considered", not "literally".

And has been pointed out like 3 times and I've accepted I was wrong. Anything for a one up 6 pages later

Ferrari3600

Any comment from the Hillary Clinton supporters?

Their candidate was the biggest war-shill neo-con going (the woman never found a war she didn't approve of) , and just last week (on other forums) they were insisting that Trump had ordered the attack on the Syrian airport only with prior agreement from the Syrian military/government + Putin, so I'm just curious as to what they are saying now!

Hank Scorpio

Ferrari3600 wrote: »

Any comment from the Hillary Clinton supporters?

Their candidate was the biggest war-shill neo-con going (the woman never found a war she didn't approve of) , and just last week (on other forums) they were insisting that Trump had ordered the attack on the Syrian airport only with prior agreement from the Syrian military/government + Putin, so I'm just curious as to what they are saying now!

Meanwhile on msnbc...

Drain Brain

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Well the military who advise him and who obviously know a lot more about the situation than anyone on this forum felt it would damage Isis so that's good enough for me.

Yeah because they were spot on with Iraq.

the_syco

Beyondgone wrote: »

It's a fuel air blast bomb too - especially horrific for anyone in the blast radius. The zone hit is deoxygenated instantly and scorched by intensely high temperatures. Nasty weapon.

So, how effective is it against an underground enemy base, versus a truck bomb hitting a densely populated public space?

MysticMonk wrote: »

A similarsized napalm and white phosphorus bomb would've been good too

Completely fcuking useless. It would have burned a few trees, but when the MOAB dropped, the underground base which it landed over caused cave-in's underground.

Luggnuts

Noddyholder wrote: »

I would like to know the damage & casualties of this action.

Would you really? Everything within a mile or 2 of this is destroyed. Can you imagine what is left of livestock? Fcuk it though.....nice to test a thermobaric bomb for the craic,

Depp

Luggnuts wrote: »

Would you really? Everything within a mile or 2 of this is destroyed. Can you imagine what is left of livestock? Fcuk it though.....nice to test a thermobaric bomb for the craic,

The effective blast radius in which everything would be destroyed is actually a few hundred metres. The worst you could expect a mile out would be shattered glass etc. This wasnt a test for the craic either it was a strategic strike on an IS stronghold.

Also just read that the 300mil figure being tossed around is actually the price of the entire program of bombs produced (15 known) and the individual price of each device is around 16mil...which is still fairly insane!

Stigura

Luggnuts wrote: »

Can you imagine what is left of livestock? Fcuk
.....

Won't somebody think of the camels, Joe! Sure; Any lads crawling out of those tunnels would have nothing left to ride! :eek:

netherlands15

AFTER THE LAST STRIKE WE GOT STOCKHOLM

I WOULDN'T LIKE TO BE IN A EUROPEAN CAPITAL CITY TOMORROW,

Noddyholder

Luggnuts wrote: »

Would you really? Everything within a mile or 2 of this is destroyed. Can you imagine what is left of livestock? Fcuk it though.....nice to test a thermobaric bomb for the craic,

Yes I would, do you find that a problem ? Your worried about the ****ing livestock & it wasn't tested for the craic , now carry on with your faux outrage etc etc

Dubh Linn

Apparently they killed 36 IS militants in the strike. Other reports say "at least 100" casualties on the IS side.

Dubh Linn

The Afghan authorities have also ruled out any civilian casualties too, something which I find quite hard to believe.

Will I Am Not

Dubh Linn wrote: »

The Afghan authorities have also ruled out any civilian casualties too, something which I find quite hard to believe.

Any word on the camel death toll?

Dubh Linn

The governor of the province said it was the biggest explosion he'd ever seen.