Largest Non-Nuclear Bomb in world dropped on Afghanistan

Yourself isit

Gatling wrote: »

I






Anyway your spoiling a happy thread

Can you try make some kind of sense?

Gatling

Yourself isit wrote: »

Eh. They funded Osama bin laden. He was one of their main guys. In fact

Bahhhhhhhhhhaaaaaahhhhhhaaaa


Stop lol

ilkhanid

Yourself isit wrote: »

Isis grew to its size in Syria under the US air shield. It was Russian intervention that started their decline. And to a certain extent public opinion in the West. The US remains allied with Al nusra - which is basically Al Queda.

More conspiraloon BS. I remember that any time the USAF bombed in Syria, there were people moaning about the infringement of Syria's sovereignty. Can't have it both ways. Bomb-whinge. Don't bomb-whinge.

Yourself isit wrote: »

Sure because the Americans are so extremely moral. I wonder though what if a dictator or Russia had used the exact same bomb in the exact area. What would the reaction be? Probably regime change.

They wouldn't have to very moral to be more moral than Putin.

XsApollo wrote: »

And what exactly did the US do when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, or have you forgotten.
They armed ,trained and funded the mujahedeen who then turned into the taliban.

How many times does this canard have to be stamped on? The Americans funded many groups, but it was the Pakistanis that oversaw the disbursement of the funds and they made sure most of the money went to groups that controlled (or thought they controlled).
There was no direct line of sucession from any resistance group to the Taliban. They were a group of ..ah, "religious students" that fled to Pakistan in the chaos after the Soviet departure and were trained by the Pakistanis to be their puppet in Afghanistan.

mikeoneilly wrote: »

More will take their place

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

...hardly merits a bomb like this surely. Something that will live on in ISIL lore, something that will recruit thousands.

Can we knock this sloppy nonsense on the head. please? You'd think we were dealing with the Alien:
" It’s got a wonderful defense mechanism: you don’t dare kill it."
We keep hearing this stuff about how if you kill them more will be inspired to take their place. In Syria and Iraq, before the fightback started,there were thousands of eager recruits rushing to join Daesh from scores of countries all over the world, even Ireland. So don't kill them-loads of recruits; kill them-loads of recruits. In fact since IS began to lose ground recruitment has slowed to a trickle. Many of those who were'nt killed have returned home. In reality, as they say "Nothing succeeds like sucess". The failure of the supposed Caliphate has disillusioned and discouraged many would-be recruits. If they fail in Afghanistan, like they failed in Libya and are failing in Syria and Iraq,their prestige and attractiveness will be damaged.

XsApollo

Gatling wrote: »

The Mujaheddin didn't​ turn into the Taliban badly misinformed ,
The Taliban is a totally separate group most of the Mujaheddin became the northern alliance.

What's next America trained bin laden

The guy who formed the taliban was a mujahideen.
Was trained and funded by the US.
There's no misinformation.

Gatling

XsApollo wrote: »

The guy who formed the taliban was a mujahideen.

And he wasn't funded or trained by the US

XsApollo

Gatling wrote: »

And he wasn't funded or trained by the US

Yes he was

Elmer Blooker

Yourself isit wrote: »

Sure because the Americans are so extremely moral. I wonder though what if a dictator or Russia had used the exact same bomb in the exact area. What woukd the reaction be? Probably regime change.

Sanctions, more sanctions, even more sanctions.
Pictures of babies, calls for a UN Security Council meeting, a UN SC meeting with pictures of babies, an indiscriminate terror bomb, even more pictures of babies, pictures of selfless aid workers with babies of course, "doctors" interviewed on RTE every five minutes, Guardian journalists interviewed on RTE every five minutes.... did I mention pictures of babies?

Gatling

XsApollo wrote: »

Yes he was

Sorry your wrong ,

Mullah Omar who founded the Taliban wasn't trained or funded by the US ,he wasn't even credited with fighting the Soviets , what was the claim ohh yeah he single handedly destroyed hundreds of Soviets tanks with a WW1 /2 bolt action rifle .

Comically

The_Valeyard

Gatling wrote: »

Sorry your wrong ,

Mullah Omar who founded the Taliban wasn't trained or funded by the US ,he wasn't even credited with fighting the Soviets , what was the claim ohh yeah he single handedly destroyed hundreds of Soviets tanks with a WW1 /2 bolt action rifle .

Comically

I also liked Rambo 3.

ilkhanid

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Sanctions, more sanctions, even more sanctions.
Pictures of babies, calls for a UN Security Council meeting, a UN SC meeting with pictures of babies, an indiscriminate terror bomb, even more pictures of babies, pictures of selfless aid workers with babies of course, "doctors" interviewed on RTE every five minutes, Guardian journalists interviewed on RTE every five minutes.... did I mention pictures of babies?

Are there likely to be babies in IS-controlled caves?
In the unlilely eventuality there are, then it's because IS combatants brough their own families into the caves. In that case their deaths are on them.

tomwaterford wrote: »

This is ture....but I'd you start saying 5 or 6 innocents is ok
Next is 10-20...where do you stop?

I understand your point,but this isn't a problem unique to Afghanistan, it's one that is present in all wars everywhere and there are no easy answers or simple solutions (like many on Boards seem to think). It really comes down to a matter of judgement. How many innocents have to be sacrificed to win a righteous conflict? At some point the numbers become so appaling that people might think that the game isn't worth the candle. On the other hand, if one were to believe that no civilians can ever die, then no war or military enterprise could be even contemplated.
To use an obvious example how could the D-Day landings have been achieved without factoring in the deaths of a large number of French civilians? It couldn't. The fact is, most combatants give thought to this, weighing different factors in the balance. If the party is of a more ruthless type and is less aware of the value of human life, they will be more heedless of the human cost. Every party sees themselves as Good Guys who try to prevent needless loss of life. Take one party. the United States:they like to present themselves as a combatant that is scrupulous about civilian life to a high degree. (An example is the film "Eye in the sky") But the reality is doubtless different. Even if some are scrupulous, others are not:careless, indifferent, callous. On the other hand we get posters like yourself isit that represent the US as composed of bloodthirsty sociopaths that don't give a curse about the deaths of civilians and probably chuckle when they see destruction. Equally far from the truth.
On balance, it's reasonable to assert that states with a history of devaluing human life or a history of brutal-and brutalising-wars for their very existence,like Russia, China and Israel will be less careful, and democracies with a free press will be more so.

Gringo180 wrote: »

But its only the sub human Afghanistan civilians that will be murdered.

See above. 800 civilians died in the battle for Caen in 1944. Do you imagine that the Allies (that included French forces too, remember) saw the people of Caen as "sub-human". Were they "murdered"?

Tabnabs

Now that the USA have dropped theirs for the first time in anger, will we see the Russians do the same in Syria and ramp up the tension in the M.E.?

Will I Am Not

XsApollo wrote: »

The guy who formed the taliban was a mujahideen.
Was trained and funded by the US.
There's no misinformation.

You know when those Facebook pages you follow say not to take news at face value?
That's good advice but you also have to use it when those random, anonymous people tell you their version of events too.

PucaMama

Tabnabs wrote: »

Now that the USA have dropped theirs for the first time in anger, will we see the Russians do the same in Syria and ramp up the tension in the M.E.?

They will. Then the US will need to be top dog again.

Capt'n Midnight

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

Their is no oil in Afghanistan. The major cause of strife there is internal power wrangles between various tribal groups fueled by cold war era politics.

Globally there's a GW of wind and a GW of solar installed ever week. And electric cars and grid backup batteries are a thing now.

Afghanistan has a trillion dollars worth of copper, rare earths, lithium , aluminium, iron, cobalt , gold, and other goodies that will become more desirable as we supplement fossil fuels with greenness.



Look at Angola , one side had the oil , the other had diamonds. So they could fund the fighting for years and year. Central Africa is like that too.


Like in Iraq US companies are doing well out of the war and reconstruction. Of course spending a fraction of that money on "Hearts and Minds" would probably be more productive. This is where the West is loosing out to China. Just like the West there is corruption when poor countries get China to build infrastructure , but the roads and railways get built. The same can't be said for basics like schools by US companies that the Iraqi and Afghani governments get billed for.

Laois_Man

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

You know when those Facebook pages you follow say not to take news at face value?
That's good advice but you also have to use it when those random, anonymous people tell you their version of events too.

Does the (then) US Secretary of State count as a random anonymous person?

Depp

Yourself isit wrote: »

It was bigger than hiroshima

Sorry but this is categorically false, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima had a payload of 15 Kilotons of tnt, the moab had a payload of 0.011 Kilotons, It would have been miniscule in comparison to the hiroshima and nagasaki bombings.

rossie1977

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!

Clinton this, Obama that.

Wasn't the big attraction of trump for supporters the fact that he wouldn't be involved as much in the middle east and wouldn't start a world war with Russia...

Since becoming president drone strikes have increased by over 400% and trump has managed to piss off close allies like Mexico, Australia, uk and Germany and now has Russia angry, all within the first 100 days.

Richard Hillman

rossie1977 wrote: »

Clinton this, Obama that.

Wasn't the big attraction of trump for supporters the fact that he wouldn't be involved as much in the middle east and wouldn't start a world war with Russia...

He said he'll blow the **** out of ISIS. Again, another election promise delivered.

A Little Pony

Richard Hillman wrote: »

rossie1977 wrote: »

Clinton this, Obama that.

Wasn't the big attraction of trump for supporters the fact that he wouldn't be involved as much in the middle east and wouldn't start a world war with Russia...

He said he'll blow the **** out of ISIS. Again, another election promise delivered.

I'd follow that man into hell! Long live Donald Trump.

Drain Brain

Hundreds of millions spent on killing 36 militants. Nice one America.

Far smaller than I thought it would be.

Depp

Deleted User wrote: »

Far smaller than I thought it would be.

hardly the blast bigger than hiroshima as some would describe it. So many lies about this bomb and its capabilities told over the last 48 hours.

Depp

Drain Brain wrote: »

Hundreds of millions spent on killing 36 militants. Nice one America.

16 million actually. Also one of IS' main bases in afghanistan completely destroyed, god only knows how much stockpiled weapons/bombs/bombmaking equipment and supplies destroyed with no us troop casualties, fairly successful mission overall.

I wonder how much of the lies were perpetrated by the Americans themselves? Realistically, 36 ISIS fighters aren't that much for a bomb that size. Definitely won't make much of a dent and, if anything, will reinforce their numbers to carry out further attacks.

ilkhanid

Drain Brain wrote: »

Hundreds of millions spent on killing 36 militants. Nice one America.

How can we tell how significant the bombing was? If it killed important or keystone people in the IS hierarchy or broke IS's hold on a strategic sector it may have been worth every penny.
Look how Stauffenberg's tiny bomb might have changed the world.

Deleted User wrote: »

Realistically, 36 ISIS fighters aren't that much for a bomb that size. Definitely won't make much of a dent and, if anything, will reinforce their numbers to carry out further attacks.

See above. It may be the calibre of the IS fighters, not the number,that counts. IS aren't like the Taliban who are mainly composed of indigenous Pushtuns. IS personnel are often foreign fighters and some nationalities like the Chechens are considered to be more formidable than others (who are sometimes regarded, not least by IS leaders themselves, as being rubbish). They won't be as easy to replace.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Like in Iraq US companies are doing well out of the war and reconstruction. Of course spending a fraction of that money on "Hearts and Minds" would probably be more productive. This is where the West is loosing out to China. Just like the West there is corruption when poor countries get China to build infrastructure , but the roads and railways get built. The same can't be said for basics like schools by US companies that the Iraqi and Afghani governments get billed for.

Chinese soft power is directed at the governments more than it is at the locals. They are often disgruntled at things like local productiob being replaced by cheap Chinese imports.
The USA spends a fair bit of money on "heart-and-minds" activities.
"30 % (of American and international assistance) has been spent on projects related to governance and development and humanitarian assistance.
These projects include programs to strengthen the local justice system of courts and prisons, expand power generation and transmission, build roads and railways, provide basic education, literacy, and technical ,vocational education and ttraining that aims to deliver basic education to communities that the government cannot reach, and administer ..health services that aim to pride primary care and hospital services".

Billy86

Richard Hillman wrote: »

He said he'll blow the **** out of ISIS. Again, another election promise delivered.

"Another" election promise delivered. :pac:

Like his draining the swamp by filling his cabinet etc with billionaires?
Like his repealing and replacing Obamacare, which failed so badly that he is now just trying to threaten repealing?
Like his building a wall and making Mexico pay for it, something his own secretary of state (and oil tycoon billionaire) has said was never even discussed?
Like his Muslim ban, which he and his team are not able to get done?
Like protecting religious liberty and protect Muslims from profiling, only to immediately go after Muslims? (See what happens when you promise two directly opposing things?)
Like his promise to protect LGBT rights, only to get rid of rulings that prevented discrimination against LGBT people?
Like transparency in government, then trying (and failing) to create the most secretive government in US history?
Like improving job creation, with March only creating about half the expected jobs, mining execs saying the jobs are not coming back, and other industries like tourism beginning to falter badly?
Like his promise to make a deal immediately for 25% of the profits and approval of the Keystone pipeline, and for it to be built entirely with US steel?
Like not getting involved in regime change, and in his first 100 days trying to get involved in possibly two attempts at regime change?
Like saying he aimed to eliminate the national debt, which his team are now calling "hyperbole"
Like saying his team would have a full report on the Russian hacking within 90 days... exactly 90 days ago today?
Like having a special prosecutor and putting Hillary Clinton on trial?
Like applying tariffs to China and to label them a currency manipulator (something he seems interested in getting involved in himself, now)?
Like releasing his taxes if he won, or removing himself from all of his businesses?
Like his promise to rarely take any vacations and constantly criticising Obama taking any vacation time? He is now averaging something like 2-3 vacation days a week and has racked up $24mn in 84 days, compared with Obama's $97mn in 8 years. If Trump were to carry on at that rate for the 8 years Obama was in office , he would have spent over $810mn.
Like his promises to not profit off the presidency? You know where the vast majority of those vacations are being spent? Trump's own resorts.
Like saying he wouldn't put political donors in positions like ambassadors, only to do exactly that?
His promise to not make crazy statements as President?
His promise to give up Twitter as President?
His promise not to settle his case for fraud against the American public via Trump University?
His promise to always tell the truth?
His promise not to dodge questions?

So many kept promises I don't even know where to start!



The guy is a fraud and con man, and has been throughout his career. He has been a disaster, not just for Americans but also for the far right generally. His team's own incompetence is staggering, has played a huge role in exposing the Russian interference across numerous elections and referendums, played a role in costing Wilders in the Netherlands an election he looked to be strolling to a win in in, and has played a huge role in the wind getting knocked out of Le Pen's sails a good bit in France. In the US, a special election in Kansas caused a huge panic when the Republicans came close to losing a seat nobody ever thought would be contested, that panic is continuing over into Georgia for another seat who has an election next week, and they lost big in Illinois elections the other day including seats they have held for 100 years.

Even the seats they are managing to hold on to have needed additional funding to do so, which whittles down their funds for future elections - and they would want to pray for some big turnaround on that front come 2018. Something like... a war, maybe. A mutual benefit between them and Trump to try and shift attention from the most inept, comical disaster of a start to a presidency the US has probably ever seen.

Depp

Depp wrote: »

hardly the blast bigger than hiroshima as some would describe it. So many lies about this bomb and its capabilities told over the last 48 hours.

The Tianjin explosions in 2015 were far far bigger.

Drain Brain

Depp wrote: »

16 million actually. Also one of IS' main bases in afghanistan completely destroyed, god only knows how much stockpiled weapons/bombs/bombmaking equipment and supplies destroyed with no us troop casualties, fairly successful mission overall.

That's the cost of the physical bomb minus absolutely everything else involved with producing it.

Depp

Drain Brain wrote: »

That's the cost of the physical bomb minus absolutely everything else involved with producing it.

the 300 mil figure is for the entire run of 15 bombs produced...the production price of a single device is just over 16 mil, not ''hundreds of millions''

So now that we hear there weren't mass casualties of civilians and it wasn't as big as Hiroshima and was actually pretty small overall, we start complaining about the cost per terrorist killed?

Ok, got it.

I AM VERY ANGRY AT AMERICAN TAXPAYERS' MONEY NOT BEING LETHAL ENOUGH. PLEASE NOTICE MY OUTRAGE AT TRUMP BECAUSE IT IS VERY RELEVANT.

Eh, Ads, don't you know they have to argue about something?

Hande hoche!

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder how much of the lies were perpetrated by the Americans themselves? Realistically, 36 ISIS fighters aren't that much for a bomb that size. Definitely won't make much of a dent and, if anything, will reinforce their numbers to carry out further attacks.

Depends to an extent, sure if it's just to kill fighters. If it is intended to wipe out a tunnel network that might have a greater effect.

Depp

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Depends to an extent, sure if it's just to kill fighters. If it is intended to wipe out a tunnel network that might have a greater effect.

Also the reason this base was chosen is its one of the main manafacturing centres for roadside ieds used by is in iraq & afghanistan. Felt safe to stockpile resources/bombmaking experts there as to 99% of other attacks and the cave complex would have been nigh on impenetrable

josip

Depp wrote: »

the 300 mil figure is for the entire run of 15 bombs produced...the production price of a single device is just over 16 mil, not ''hundreds of millions''

So the more of them you use the better value they become?

Depp

josip wrote: »

So the more of them you use the better value they become?

not really the value of each device doesnt go up or down depending on how many you use.

josip

Depp wrote: »

not really the value of each device doesnt go up or down depending on how many you use.

Which is why I said 'they', not 'each'

Depp

josip wrote: »

Which is why I said 'they', not 'each'

I see, missed that! still dont see how the amount used changes the value but sure whatever you're having yourself!

voz es

I wonder why they spray bombs, not many who see them are going to be commenting on their colour.

gerrybbadd

IS have denied there were any fighters killed or even wounded by this bomb.

josip

Depp wrote: »

I see, missed that! still dont see how the amount used changes the value but sure whatever you're having yourself!

Sorry, I'm not being clear.
I think it's $300m they've spent on 15 bombs and the additional cost per bomb is $16m? Let's say $20m to include the cost of storage and delivery.

In my simplistic view of the world, their 1 big explosion so far has cost them $300m.
If they drop another one, then each explosion will have cost $150m.
The more they drop the closer they get to their additional unit cost of $20m per bomb.
Which is why I think 'they' become better value the more you drop.

MysticMonk

voz es wrote: »

I wonder why they spray bombs, not many who see them are going to be commenting on their colour.

So they don't balls up and load up the wrong object.

As far as i know most munitions are colour coded,armour piercing,high explosive etc etc. You don't want to fire HE at a tank

Depp

josip wrote: »

Sorry, I'm not being clear.
I think it's $300m they've spent on 15 bombs and the additional cost per bomb is $16m? Let's say $20m to include the cost of storage and delivery.

In my simplistic view of the world, their 1 big explosion so far has cost them $300m.
If they drop another one, then each explosion will have cost $150m.
The more they drop the closer they get to their additional unit cost of $20m per bomb.
Which is why I think 'they' become better value the more you drop.

suppose i can kinda get what you're saying when you put it that way alright!

Gatling

It was a fairly precision strike for such a large weapon going by the video,
Wonder if they will release a wider view to see how far the explosion went into the cave network

Carlos Orange

Deleted User wrote: »

So now that we hear there weren't mass casualties of civilians and it wasn't as big as Hiroshima and was actually pretty small overall, we start complaining about the cost per terrorist killed?

Were there supposed to be mass civilian casualties or something? One of the articles I read said local civilians were warned of the bombing ahead of time.

Elmer Blooker

Gatling wrote: »

It was a fairly precision strike for such a large weapon going by the video,
Wonder if they will release a wider view to see how far the explosion went into the cave network

Precision.
Anyone remember similar huge bombs called "daisy cutters" that were going to take out Bin Laden?
In the end it took an informer and a big fat reward to track him down to Pakistan.

Widdershins

Depp wrote: »

Also the reason this base was chosen is its one of the main manafacturing centres for roadside ieds used by is in iraq & afghanistan. Felt safe to stockpile resources/bombmaking experts there as to 99% of other attacks and the cave complex would have been nigh on impenetrable

It makes sense, imo.

OP how are you feeling or thinking in light of the latest information?

namloc1980

Supposed location of the bombing per Twitter. Matches pretty well to the video.

click

psinno

psinno wrote: »

Were there supposed to be mass civilian casualties or something? One of the articles I read said local civilians were warned of the bombing ahead of time.

Go back to the first couple of pages of this thread. You'd swear those mountains were downtown Kabul.

jjbrien

Deleted User wrote: »

Go back to the first couple of pages of this thread. You'd swear those mountains were downtown Kabul.

You would swear it was here To be honest it was a wasted effort and ISIS did a subside attack in Kabul today.

Gatling

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Precision.
Anyone remember similar huge bombs called "daisy cutters" that were going to take out Bin Laden.

Daisy cutters aren't huge mainly used to clear tress ,

But they got bin laden in the end didn't they

Ah well.

Didn't russia use precision weapons in Syria and managed to hit Iran instead