Mother Of All Bombs

[problem_child]

Its interesting that despite their insistance that they will avoid civilian loss of life when The War starts, the Americanskis are planning to deploy their new (non-nuclear air burst) MOABs in Iraq. Kinda difficult to avoid hitting casualties if your gonna start throwing massive ordnance like that about.

Saddam's certainly got a way with words, and the Americans certainly got a way of ramming em right back down his throat, next- the Americanki will bring us the

Wherever There Is Land Sea Or Sky Bomb, now that's certainly gonna pack some punch.

[Pyrodrew]

Re: Mother Of All Bombs

Originally posted by problem_child
Its interesting that despite their insistance that they will avoid civilian loss of life when The War starts, the Americanskis are planning to deploy their new (sub-nuclear air burst) MOABs in Iraq.

It's not a substitute for a nuclear weapon. A tiny US nuke would do ALOT more damage.

[problem_child]

I said sub-nuclear as in non-nuclear air burst

[BeBMan]

Re: Mother Of All Bombs

Originally posted by problem_child
Its interesting that despite their insistance that they will avoid civilian loss of life when The War starts, the Americanskis are planning to deploy their new (sub-nuclear air burst) MOABs in Iraq. Kinda difficult to avoid hitting casualties if your gonna start throwing massive ordnance like that about.

I doubt they´ll use it against cilvilians, that would make no sense. Do you have a source about this?

[problem_child]

Its not that I'd expect them to use it against civilians, but civilians will certainly get caught in the blast, its not a 'surgical strike weapon' is it.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/66527p-61918c.html

[Pyrodrew]

Well its good we clarified that, I had no idea how you meant to use "sub-"...

sub-
pref.
1.Below; under; beneath: subsoil.
2.Subordinate; secondary: subplot.
3.Subdivision: subregion.
4.Less than completely or normally; nearly; almost

[GePap]

MIlitary pornography at its best. Such a device has limited uses, much like the even bigger bombs designed to bust German Submarine pens in WW2 had limited uses.

In {i]Foreign Affairs[/i] they had a fine discussion about how "revolutionary" the war in afganistan was, and in it they ad some interesting discussions about morale and the effect of massive bombardment; so here is a nice example:

The Brits created a plan to help them break out of the Normandy beachhead they ahd around Caen. It would be an armor thrust to be called operation Greenwood. The notion was o saturate a very small sector of the front (7.5KM) with a huge amoun of firepower for a short time (an hour and 1 half) to be followed by the armored thrust. In that 1.5 hours the brits dropped 8500 tons of high explosives on a 7.5 km front, or the equivalent of about 840 of these MOABs. After this one hour the Brits atatcked. The remaining German defenders were able to destroy 1/3 of the British armor. Lesson: even huge amounts of firepower can;t be expected to fully destroy an eemy willing to resist.

If the war against Iraq is quick and easy its because the Iraqis don't want to figth it.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by problem_child
Its not that I'd expect them to use it against civilians, but civilians will certainly get caught in the blast, its not a 'surgical strike weapon' is it.

Depends where they deploy it....

[faded glory]

Dont forget its satelitte guided. So it isnt just 'dropped'. It will fly to its target. Dang, but 22,000 pounds...whew..


I thought Daisy cutters were big!?

Boy we/the pentagon really love big bombs. Like the germans loved there big railway guns in the last world war ?

[DaShi]

How about the one the sets the surrounding air on fire? Are they hoping the clear out any rats before heading into the sewers?

[problem_child]

Americas weapons are the most inhuman, and devastating, this is an acknowleged fact.

notthatthere'sanythingwrongwiththat.

[DaShi]

There is the one that just takes out telephones and computers and such. So let's not go to extremes.

[GePap]

Nope: the biggest bang the US ever tested was 20 Megatons. The Russkies did 56 Megatons. We are 36 Megatons behind!

[Felch]

To be fair GePap, this is a very big bomb. I'm sure most anybody caught in its blast would be very dead. America today has spent decades perfecting its "Kill as many people as possible" technology. We're well beyond where the British were.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by GePap
Nope: the biggest bang the US ever tested was 20 Megatons. The Russkies did 56 Megatons. We are 36 Megatons behind!

Actually the largest Soviet Warhead ever tested was rated at over 100 Megatons (topping out somewhere near 180MT IIRC) by Finnish and Norwegian scientists monitoring it with seismic detection equipment.

Depends where they deploy it....

Afterall its announced purpose was to kill hardened airfields and massed concentrations of enemy soldiers.
It's not a weapon likely to see use inside a crowded city.