The U.S., for the first time, uses the MOAB bomb....So what?

[OldLady]

You realize I wasn't responding to you, right?

No, I didn't. Thanks for clarifying that.

The news, since the event, has been babbling about "shows of strength" as a message to the DPRK and others.

That might be some people's "read" on the situation, but I don't believe that is why it was used. Pundits will spin and try to find interesting stuff to say about any piece of news, but I don't find it important.

It's not implausible that that be among the primary motives for the MOAB bombing, and the government hasn't, as far as I've heard or seen, refuted the notion that it was. The Pentagon has been surprisingly mum about the whole matter. Even the announcement that the MOAB was used came from the WH, which alone suggests that "messaging," domestic politics and publicity are major drivers to the event.

no credible and believable messages being issued that show why doing so was prioritized and highlighted over completing the defeat of ISIS in Syria and Iraq where it is far stronger than it is in Afghanistan

My understanding (and I could be wrong) was that the war in Afghanistan has been going longer and that we have more troops there than in Iraq and Syria. I keep hearing reports now and then that the terrorist activity is growing. It seems we have had more troops in Afghanistan killed recently than in Iraq or Syria. So I'm not sure why Afghanistan as a theater of operations should have any less emphasis than Iraq and Syria. Perhaps we should learn our lesson from ignoring ISIS when it first got a foothold in Iraq. If it is now growing in Afghanistan, it might be a good idea to stop it now rather than later.

First, I want to be clear that, unlike many Americans, I don't consider any violent act by a Muslim or local in A-stan, Iraq, Syria, and other primarily Muslim countries to be terrorism. I say that because what's going on in A-stan is largely a conflict between the government there and the Taliban, which mostly is a band of loosely aligned pastorally provincial "warlords" of sorts battling over relatively small discrete "turfs" and against the central government's authority over them, which is the source of their alignment. The Taliban are not terrorist threats to the U.S. and they and ISIS do not see eye-to-eye.

What may well be happening in A-stan is that ISIS is trying to establish a foothold amidst the chaos resulting from the conflict there, much as they did in Syria and Iraq. A-stan, though it does have a central government, culturally is essentially a feudal society, and that inherently creates an opportunity for ISIS to insinuate itself there as it seeks refuge from Syria and Iraq. In light of that, the preemptive aspect makes tactical and strategic sense.

If you ask me, it's quite plausible that there is legitimate purpose to bombing ISIS in A-stan. That there is and that Trump concurs it's "worth it," however, represents a dramatic reversal in Trump's position, a reversal that essentially aligns with the position of the prior Administration. As goes Trump himself, I don't mind that he's changed his mind; I mind that he's not openly owning the fact that he has. I also mind the spin he's putting on it.

As for why we are fighting in A-stan, well, the reasons have evolved over time, but the primary reason for the past few years is to help the central government get control of the place. Initially we sought that end roughly as an aspect of nation building -- it's not that the nation being "built" wasn't already present and favorable to the U.S.; it was that its government was (and still is) too weak to hold its own against all comers -- and because Al Qaeda was hunkered down there and the Afghan government was powerless to do anything about it. In more recent years, however, it's more about quelling the chaos that the Afghan government cannot and which provides openings for ISIS.

Note:

The U.S. doesn't innately have a political issue with the Taliban. We did, after all, aid and abet them in their fight against the USSR. The problem with the Taliban is that they are too loosely confederated to constitute a strong enough government that can deny "comfort" to organizations like ISIS. Even being of a mind to deny groups like ISIS a place in the country, they lack the means to stop them.

That left the U.S. having to choose between two weak groups that want control over A-stan: the Taliban and the central government. In my mind, that's an easy "top level" choice; go with the central government because the alternative is to try collaborating with 50 to 100 feudal warlords who don't particularly get along all that well among themselves and who don't see any value in caring about what goes on outside their little corner of the world.

At the end of the day and as goes other nations, the U.S. wants and needs one thing above all others: stable governments that have control of their respective countries and that aren't lead by "nut jobs." The U.S. government does not and never has really been all that bothered by what foreign governments do so long as they aren't physically attacking the U.S. and have control over their own lands.

China is a fine example of that. For all our outcry about human rights, the fact of the matter is that China is very stable. Take the Xinjiang province in China. The people there are culturally more like the "Stans" (any of them not just Afghans) than they are like Han Chinese, yet one doesn't find Taliban or ISIS groups taking refuge in Xinjiang. That's because the central government in China isn't having it. That works for the U.S. and is more important than is whatever other issues our government may have with the PRC government. (Make no mistake, U.S.-China "issues" are governmental. Chinese citizens, the "rank and file," are wholly enamoured with Americans and pretty much anyone else. They are actually very pleasant people.)​

First, thanks for the additional information on Afghanistan.

It's not implausible that that be among the primary motives for the MOAB bombing, and the government hasn't, as far as I've heard or seen, refuted the notion that it was. The Pentagon has been surprisingly mum about the whole matter. Even the announcement that the MOAB was used came from the WH, which alone suggests that "messaging," domestic politics and publicity are major drivers to the event.
I don't see what leads you to believe the MOAB bombing was primarily done for publicity motives. Another poster here has already provided information that this move was requested months ago by ground forces and Obama said no. I see no reason to believe the primary purpose was anything but tactical. Your question of who broke the news to the public? The Pentagon had a lengthy statement this a.m., given by Johnson, that explained the what, why, who, etc. They had to "scrub" some of the information before releasing it, which makes sense. I think I would expect the Commander in Chief to advise us of the strike, which was certainly noteworthy in its target and was using ordinance far larger than any we have used before.
Now, as for Trump capitalizing on opportunities to look good, whether they are his responsibility or not....he has been doing that since before he was even inaugurated, so I'm not saying he wouldn't step in and take credit for looking like a Big Man, but that's just Trump spin, not the actual reason for the strikes.

If our mission in Afghanistan is to help the central government get the country under control, I think the strike on that terrorist hideout is perfectly appropriate. If ISIS wasn't using it, you can bet some other terror group would be. Now no one will, and that's a Good Thing in my book.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Your question of who broke the news to the public? The Pentagon had a lengthy statement this a.m., given by Johnson, that explained the what, why, who, etc.

I definitely haven't seen that yet. I will take a look at it. There's no denying that my comments derived from my understanding of things as of last night. (I could say "this morning" too, for I hadn't and still haven't had time to catch today's news.)

I should have been clearer. I'm less concerned with who broke the news than I am with the nature of the information the "breaking" party released. Had Spicer provided a tactical sort of disclosure rather than a "ooh, look what we did" one, that'd be fine with me. I care are about substance. Trump and crew are in the WH, be that for better or for worse. As far as I'm concerned, merely doing their job of governing efficiently and effectively, delivering palpable results, will speak not only volumes, but for themselves, more so and more effectively than will telling me/us that they dropped the biggest, baddest bomb they had to drop.

If our mission in Afghanistan is to help the central government get the country under control, I think the strike on that terrorist hideout is perfectly appropriate. If ISIS wasn't using it, you can bet some other terror group would be. Now no one will, and that's a Good Thing in my book.

I want demonstrable evidence that my government and its leaders are making sound decisions, rationally prioritizing the problems they aim to solve, that they are doing so in a way that minimizes total risk to the American people, etc. The publicity and propaganda is just "noise" as far as I'm concerned. The time for the publicity and horn tooting will come, but less than 100 days into his Presidency is not the time for it.

 

[Markle]

We could have won in Vietnam with, "our socialism is better than theirs".

We could have won in Vietnam if the military had been turned loose to win. You can't play "not to lose" and expect to win in sports, business or war.

 

[xyz]

I wasn't too impressed by the bomb. I saw a video of it being tested and it was a big explosion, but nothing crazy.

I also read it was only 1/1000th of the Hiroshima bomb, which makes it the FOAB (fetus of all bombs).

But the radius is pretty similar in size, there is no radiation though.

The scope of the detonation was not strategic or of military importance. Supposedly only 36 militants were killed, according to the U.S. military, plus a teacher and his young son, according to locals. The amount of casualties seems very small, and the same results could have been achieved using much cheaper and less sophisticated weapons.

The scope was to scare other people/nations. If he is crazy enough to detonate such a device, Drumpf wants to show the whole world he is not scared to used such weapons in more populated areas, or even use nuclear weapons, which would be the next step.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

It's coming over the news that the U.S. forces for the first time, so we're told, dropped the Mother of All Bombs (MOAB) on one (several?) ISIS positions in Afghanistan. So what? Why does anyone need to know that? The whole world knows that the U.S. is actively fighting ISIS in Iraq and Afghanistan. It should not come as a surprise that the U.S. drops bombs there, big ones, little ones, and in-between ones.

Do you really give a damn what specific munitions the U.S. uses? Do you just care that U.S. forces have and use the appropriate munition for the situation they face? The latter is all I care about. I don't care what type of conventional weapons U.S. forces use in combat.

I'm wondering why the hell we'd advertise that we've dropped the most destructive/powerful bomb in our inventory. If there were any doubt in our opponents' mind about the force limit of our bombs, well, now they need no longer wonder. The problem with that is that now that we've told everyone that we used the MOAB, anyone to whom it matters knows what they must do to protect themselves from it. Better, IMO, to have just dropped the thing and discussed the results it achieved. There's no need to disclose that we dropped the "biggest, baddest" bomb we have.

Air campaigns don't work. Vietnam proved it.

To a certain extent thats true.
One thing to remember is Vietnam was covered in jungle making it difficult to pinpoint the enemy.
And our weapons are far more advanced as well.

 

[usmbguest5318]

To a certain extent thats true.

It is true in a certain context. I didn't respond to that comment because the context in which it is a point where nothing isn't germane to the topic here. The member's remark was one that calls to mine this:

Billy: Well, Humpty Dumpty did fall off of a wall. That much is true.
Mark: Yes, he did, but why the "F" are you talking about Humpty Dumpty?​

 

[Billy000]

It's coming over the news that the U.S. forces for the first time, so we're told, dropped the Mother of All Bombs (MOAB) on one (several?) ISIS positions in Afghanistan. So what? Why does anyone need to know that? The whole world knows that the U.S. is actively fighting ISIS in Iraq and Afghanistan. It should not come as a surprise that the U.S. drops bombs there, big ones, little ones, and in-between ones.

Do you really give a damn what specific munitions the U.S. uses? Do you just care that U.S. forces have and use the appropriate munition for the situation they face? The latter is all I care about. I don't care what type of conventional weapons U.S. forces use in combat.

I'm wondering why the hell we'd advertise that we've dropped the most destructive/powerful bomb in our inventory. If there were any doubt in our opponents' mind about the force limit of our bombs, well, now they need no longer wonder. The problem with that is that now that we've told everyone that we used the MOAB, anyone to whom it matters knows what they must do to protect themselves from it. Better, IMO, to have just dropped the thing and discussed the results it achieved. There's no need to disclose that we dropped the "biggest, baddest" bomb we have.

I don't really understand all this hype over it.

 

[OldLady]

I wasn't too impressed by the bomb. I saw a video of it being tested and it was a big explosion, but nothing crazy.

I also read it was only 1/1000th of the Hiroshima bomb, which makes it the FOAB (fetus of all bombs).

But the radius is pretty similar in size, there is no radiation though.

The scope of the detonation was not strategic or of military importance. Supposedly only 36 militants were killed, according to the U.S. military, plus a teacher and his young son, according to locals. The amount of casualties seems very small, and the same results could have been achieved using much cheaper and less sophisticated weapons.

The scope was to scare other people/nations. If he is crazy enough to detonate such a device, Drumpf wants to show the whole world he is not scared to used such weapons in more populated areas, or even use nuclear weapons, which would be the next step.

Using the MOAB didn't "show" the world he would use such weapons in more populated areas or that he would escalate to nukes. There is nothing indicating that but the whispers in your own mind.
How many critics of the President have focused on the "mountain top" and the 36 fighters killed and completely ignored the actual strategic target, which was the CAVE SYSTEM which has been used as an ISIS/terrorist base of operations. They have tried before getting in there in more conventional ways and failed. I'm glad they got rid of what is the equivalent of a military base for ISIS. No one can hide there anymore.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

To a certain extent thats true.

It is true in a certain context. I didn't respond to that comment because the context in which it is a point where nothing isn't germane to the topic here. The member's remark was one that calls to mine this:

Billy: Well, Humpty Dumpty did fall off of a wall. That much is true.
Mark: Yes, he did, but why the "F" are you talking about Humpty Dumpty?​

Was I responding to you?

 

[Godboy]

The plan to use a MOAB at this location was being planned months ago during Obama's administration.

I looked but did not find your source or link.

Please provide is with your source and link so that we may see that petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama authorized the plan to use the MOAB. Thank you so much!

"The officials said the planning to use the bomb had been under way for months during the Obama administration and that the bomb had been in Afghanistan for months."

That's from the linked story.

 

[usmbguest5318]

It's coming over the news that the U.S. forces for the first time, so we're told, dropped the Mother of All Bombs (MOAB) on one (several?) ISIS positions in Afghanistan. So what? Why does anyone need to know that? The whole world knows that the U.S. is actively fighting ISIS in Iraq and Afghanistan. It should not come as a surprise that the U.S. drops bombs there, big ones, little ones, and in-between ones.

Do you really give a damn what specific munitions the U.S. uses? Do you just care that U.S. forces have and use the appropriate munition for the situation they face? The latter is all I care about. I don't care what type of conventional weapons U.S. forces use in combat.

I'm wondering why the hell we'd advertise that we've dropped the most destructive/powerful bomb in our inventory. If there were any doubt in our opponents' mind about the force limit of our bombs, well, now they need no longer wonder. The problem with that is that now that we've told everyone that we used the MOAB, anyone to whom it matters knows what they must do to protect themselves from it. Better, IMO, to have just dropped the thing and discussed the results it achieved. There's no need to disclose that we dropped the "biggest, baddest" bomb we have.

I don't really understand all this hype over it.

Because the POTUS, via his press secretary, made a point of telling us they dropped the MOAB. You see, like it or not, when the POTUS thinks something is worth mentioning or discussing, that thing becomes a point of discussion. It becomes "hype" or "hyped" because the "leader of the free world" made it something worth talking about and sharing.

Had the WH merely noted that the U.S. military conducted a successful operation against ISIS faction in A-stan, that'd have been just fine in my book. Let the MOAB use come out organically via Pentagon spokespeople as part of the follow-on discussion about it. That way, it doesn't look like the WH wants to make a point of using the MOAB and is instead focused on announcing results. Better still, let the whole story be delivered via the Pentagon, which from square one doesn't have the same degree of politicization as does the inherently political and "image conscious" WH, especially the Trump WH. Hell, the event, insofar as it's not a final event in the combat there or in the fight against ISIS, is really just a tactical story/event, and thus is rightly the Pentagon's to deliver.

Edit/Note:

Just because a POTUS doesn't mention something doesn't make it not worth discussing. It's merely that the things the POTUS does mention are worth discussing.​

 

[Billy000]

It's coming over the news that the U.S. forces for the first time, so we're told, dropped the Mother of All Bombs (MOAB) on one (several?) ISIS positions in Afghanistan. So what? Why does anyone need to know that? The whole world knows that the U.S. is actively fighting ISIS in Iraq and Afghanistan. It should not come as a surprise that the U.S. drops bombs there, big ones, little ones, and in-between ones.

Do you really give a damn what specific munitions the U.S. uses? Do you just care that U.S. forces have and use the appropriate munition for the situation they face? The latter is all I care about. I don't care what type of conventional weapons U.S. forces use in combat.

I'm wondering why the hell we'd advertise that we've dropped the most destructive/powerful bomb in our inventory. If there were any doubt in our opponents' mind about the force limit of our bombs, well, now they need no longer wonder. The problem with that is that now that we've told everyone that we used the MOAB, anyone to whom it matters knows what they must do to protect themselves from it. Better, IMO, to have just dropped the thing and discussed the results it achieved. There's no need to disclose that we dropped the "biggest, baddest" bomb we have.

I don't really understand all this hype over it.

Because the POTUS, via his press secretary, made a point of telling us they dropped the MOAB. You see, like it or not, when the POTUS thinks something is worth mentioning or discussing, that thing becomes a point of discussion. It becomes "hype" or "hyped" because the "leader of the free world" made it something worth talking about and sharing.

Had the WH merely noted that the U.S. military conducted a successful operation against ISIS faction in A-stan, that'd have been just fine in my book. Let the MOAB use come out organically via Pentagon spokespeople as part of the follow-on discussion about it. That way, it doesn't look like the WH wants to make a point of using the MOAB and is instead focused on announcing results. Better still, let the whole story be delivered via the Pentagon, which from square one doesn't have the same degree of politicization as does the inherently political and "image conscious" WH, especially the Trump WH. Hell, the event, insofar as it's not a final event in the combat there or in the fight against ISIS, is really just a tactical story/event, and thus is rightly the Pentagon's to deliver.

Well how the whitehouse and pentagon handles it is one thing, but the media blowing up the story and talking about it excessively is another. Fox News, pathetically, attached music to the video of it being detonated. I guess it gives all those 70-year-old Fox watchers a hard on.

 

[Muhammed]

There's no need to disclose that we dropped the "biggest, baddest" bomb we have.

The MOP is 9,000 lbs bigger than the MOAB.

 

[Borillar]

There's no need to disclose that we dropped the "biggest, baddest" bomb we have.

The MOP is 9,000 lbs bigger than the MOAB.

Maybe the Air Force should automate the flight controls of a C-5 and load it up with MOABs and drone bomb the fuck out of targets.

 

[playtime]

It's coming over the news that the U.S. forces for the first time, so we're told, dropped the Mother of All Bombs (MOAB) on one (several?) ISIS positions in Afghanistan. So what? Why does anyone need to know that? The whole world knows that the U.S. is actively fighting ISIS in Iraq and Afghanistan. It should not come as a surprise that the U.S. drops bombs there, big ones, little ones, and in-between ones.

Do you really give a damn what specific munitions the U.S. uses? Do you just care that U.S. forces have and use the appropriate munition for the situation they face? The latter is all I care about. I don't care what type of conventional weapons U.S. forces use in combat.

I'm wondering why the hell we'd advertise that we've dropped the most destructive/powerful bomb in our inventory. If there were any doubt in our opponents' mind about the force limit of our bombs, well, now they need no longer wonder. The problem with that is that now that we've told everyone that we used the MOAB, anyone to whom it matters knows what they must do to protect themselves from it. Better, IMO, to have just dropped the thing and discussed the results it achieved. There's no need to disclose that we dropped the "biggest, baddest" bomb we have.

Dropping the MOAB was a deliberate attempt to divert attention from Trump's small, small hands!

Small, small hands the T-REX

Yes, well, we know that species will be "extinct" no more than eight years from now.

he's toast within the year.

 

[danielpalos]

You realize I wasn't responding to you, right?

No, I didn't. Thanks for clarifying that.

The news, since the event, has been babbling about "shows of strength" as a message to the DPRK and others.

That might be some people's "read" on the situation, but I don't believe that is why it was used. Pundits will spin and try to find interesting stuff to say about any piece of news, but I don't find it important.

It's not implausible that that be among the primary motives for the MOAB bombing, and the government hasn't, as far as I've heard or seen, refuted the notion that it was. The Pentagon has been surprisingly mum about the whole matter. Even the announcement that the MOAB was used came from the WH, which alone suggests that "messaging," domestic politics and publicity are major drivers to the event.

no credible and believable messages being issued that show why doing so was prioritized and highlighted over completing the defeat of ISIS in Syria and Iraq where it is far stronger than it is in Afghanistan

My understanding (and I could be wrong) was that the war in Afghanistan has been going longer and that we have more troops there than in Iraq and Syria. I keep hearing reports now and then that the terrorist activity is growing. It seems we have had more troops in Afghanistan killed recently than in Iraq or Syria. So I'm not sure why Afghanistan as a theater of operations should have any less emphasis than Iraq and Syria. Perhaps we should learn our lesson from ignoring ISIS when it first got a foothold in Iraq. If it is now growing in Afghanistan, it might be a good idea to stop it now rather than later.

First, I want to be clear that, unlike many Americans, I don't consider any violent act by a Muslim or local in A-stan, Iraq, Syria, and other primarily Muslim countries to be terrorism. I say that because what's going on in A-stan is largely a conflict between the government there and the Taliban, which mostly is a band of loosely aligned pastorally provincial "warlords" of sorts battling over relatively small discrete "turfs" and against the central government's authority over them, which is the source of their alignment. The Taliban are not terrorist threats to the U.S. and they and ISIS do not see eye-to-eye.

What may well be happening in A-stan is that ISIS is trying to establish a foothold amidst the chaos resulting from the conflict there, much as they did in Syria and Iraq. A-stan, though it does have a central government, culturally is essentially a feudal society, and that inherently creates an opportunity for ISIS to insinuate itself there as it seeks refuge from Syria and Iraq. In light of that, the preemptive aspect makes tactical and strategic sense.

If you ask me, it's quite plausible that there is legitimate purpose to bombing ISIS in A-stan. That there is and that Trump concurs it's "worth it," however, represents a dramatic reversal in Trump's position, a reversal that essentially aligns with the position of the prior Administration. As goes Trump himself, I don't mind that he's changed his mind; I mind that he's not openly owning the fact that he has. I also mind the spin he's putting on it.

As for why we are fighting in A-stan, well, the reasons have evolved over time, but the primary reason for the past few years is to help the central government get control of the place. Initially we sought that end roughly as an aspect of nation building -- it's not that the nation being "built" wasn't already present and favorable to the U.S.; it was that its government was (and still is) too weak to hold its own against all comers -- and because Al Qaeda was hunkered down there and the Afghan government was powerless to do anything about it. In more recent years, however, it's more about quelling the chaos that the Afghan government cannot and which provides openings for ISIS.

Note:

The U.S. doesn't innately have a political issue with the Taliban. We did, after all, aid and abet them in their fight against the USSR. The problem with the Taliban is that they are too loosely confederated to constitute a strong enough government that can deny "comfort" to organizations like ISIS. Even being of a mind to deny groups like ISIS a place in the country, they lack the means to stop them.

That left the U.S. having to choose between two weak groups that want control over A-stan: the Taliban and the central government. In my mind, that's an easy "top level" choice; go with the central government because the alternative is to try collaborating with 50 to 100 feudal warlords who don't particularly get along all that well among themselves and who don't see any value in caring about what goes on outside their little corner of the world.

At the end of the day and as goes other nations, the U.S. wants and needs one thing above all others: stable governments that have control of their respective countries and that aren't lead by "nut jobs." The U.S. government does not and never has really been all that bothered by what foreign governments do so long as they aren't physically attacking the U.S. and have control over their own lands.

China is a fine example of that. For all our outcry about human rights, the fact of the matter is that China is very stable. Take the Xinjiang province in China. The people there are culturally more like the "Stans" (any of them not just Afghans) than they are like Han Chinese, yet one doesn't find Taliban or ISIS groups taking refuge in Xinjiang. That's because the central government in China isn't having it. That works for the U.S. and is more important than is whatever other issues our government may have with the PRC government. (Make no mistake, U.S.-China "issues" are governmental. Chinese citizens, the "rank and file," are wholly enamoured with Americans and pretty much anyone else. They are actually very pleasant people.)​

First, thanks for the additional information on Afghanistan.

It's not implausible that that be among the primary motives for the MOAB bombing, and the government hasn't, as far as I've heard or seen, refuted the notion that it was. The Pentagon has been surprisingly mum about the whole matter. Even the announcement that the MOAB was used came from the WH, which alone suggests that "messaging," domestic politics and publicity are major drivers to the event.
I don't see what leads you to believe the MOAB bombing was primarily done for publicity motives. Another poster here has already provided information that this move was requested months ago by ground forces and Obama said no. I see no reason to believe the primary purpose was anything but tactical. Your question of who broke the news to the public? The Pentagon had a lengthy statement this a.m., given by Johnson, that explained the what, why, who, etc. They had to "scrub" some of the information before releasing it, which makes sense. I think I would expect the Commander in Chief to advise us of the strike, which was certainly noteworthy in its target and was using ordinance far larger than any we have used before.
Now, as for Trump capitalizing on opportunities to look good, whether they are his responsibility or not....he has been doing that since before he was even inaugurated, so I'm not saying he wouldn't step in and take credit for looking like a Big Man, but that's just Trump spin, not the actual reason for the strikes.

If our mission in Afghanistan is to help the central government get the country under control, I think the strike on that terrorist hideout is perfectly appropriate. If ISIS wasn't using it, you can bet some other terror group would be. Now no one will, and that's a Good Thing in my book.

What is different between this "strategy" and the strategy we used in Vietnam?

 

[danielpalos]

We could have won in Vietnam with, "our socialism is better than theirs".

We could have won in Vietnam if the military had been turned loose to win. You can't play "not to lose" and expect to win in sports, business or war.

Not enough oil in Vietnam?

Our entire southeast policy, based on a domino fallacy masquerading as a "theory", has always been, just right wing fantasy.

 

[danielpalos]

I wasn't too impressed by the bomb. I saw a video of it being tested and it was a big explosion, but nothing crazy.

I also read it was only 1/1000th of the Hiroshima bomb, which makes it the FOAB (fetus of all bombs).

But the radius is pretty similar in size, there is no radiation though.

The scope of the detonation was not strategic or of military importance. Supposedly only 36 militants were killed, according to the U.S. military, plus a teacher and his young son, according to locals. The amount of casualties seems very small, and the same results could have been achieved using much cheaper and less sophisticated weapons.

The scope was to scare other people/nations. If he is crazy enough to detonate such a device, Drumpf wants to show the whole world he is not scared to used such weapons in more populated areas, or even use nuclear weapons, which would be the next step.

Instead of solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, in five minutes or less, by executive order. I got it.

 

[danielpalos]

It's coming over the news that the U.S. forces for the first time, so we're told, dropped the Mother of All Bombs (MOAB) on one (several?) ISIS positions in Afghanistan. So what? Why does anyone need to know that? The whole world knows that the U.S. is actively fighting ISIS in Iraq and Afghanistan. It should not come as a surprise that the U.S. drops bombs there, big ones, little ones, and in-between ones.

Do you really give a damn what specific munitions the U.S. uses? Do you just care that U.S. forces have and use the appropriate munition for the situation they face? The latter is all I care about. I don't care what type of conventional weapons U.S. forces use in combat.

I'm wondering why the hell we'd advertise that we've dropped the most destructive/powerful bomb in our inventory. If there were any doubt in our opponents' mind about the force limit of our bombs, well, now they need no longer wonder. The problem with that is that now that we've told everyone that we used the MOAB, anyone to whom it matters knows what they must do to protect themselves from it. Better, IMO, to have just dropped the thing and discussed the results it achieved. There's no need to disclose that we dropped the "biggest, baddest" bomb we have.

Air campaigns don't work. Vietnam proved it.

To a certain extent thats true.
One thing to remember is Vietnam was covered in jungle making it difficult to pinpoint the enemy.
And our weapons are far more advanced as well.

In other words, the "wrong" strategy was used in Vietnam, by regulars.

 

[danielpalos]

To a certain extent thats true.

It is true in a certain context. I didn't respond to that comment because the context in which it is a point where nothing isn't germane to the topic here. The member's remark was one that calls to mine this:

Billy: Well, Humpty Dumpty did fall off of a wall. That much is true.
Mark: Yes, he did, but why the "F" are you talking about Humpty Dumpty?​

Only the right wing likes to repeat historical mistakes and claim they are not really like that, afterward.