'MOTHER OF ALL BOMBS' US drops largest non-nuclear weapon on ISIS in Afghanistan

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/13/politics/afghanistan-isis-moab-bomb/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/13/us-drops-largest-non-nuclear-bomb-in-afghanistan-after-green-beret-killed.html

The U.S. military dropped its largest non-nuclear bomb on an ISIS tunnel complex in eastern Afghanistan on Thursday, a U.S. defense official confirmed to Fox News.

The GBU-43B, a 21,000-pound conventional bomb, was deployed in Nangarhar Province.

The Massive Ordinance Air Blast was first tested in 2003. (DOD)

The MOAB -- Massive Ordnance Air Blast -- is also known as the “Mother Of All bombs.” It was first tested in 2003, but hadn't been used in combat before Thursday.

The MOAB is so massive it had to be dropped out of the back of a U.S. Air Force C-130 cargo plane.

"We kicked it out the back door," one U.S. official told Fox News.

For comparison to the 21,000-pound MOAB, each Tomahawk cruise missile launched at a Syrian military air base last week was 1,000-pounds each.

@scrollinglayers:

That's one sexy-ass bomb, I gotta say!

I feel a chant of USA! USA! coming on from the ignorant Trump supporters.

From The Washington Post:

The U.S. military has targeted similar complexes and dropped tens of thousands of bombs in Afghanistan, raising the question of why a bomb of this size was needed Thursday. It was unclear what the GBU-43 strike accomplished, as the bomb is not designed to penetrate hardened targets such a bunkers or cave complexes. A spokesman for U.S. forces in Afghanistan did not respond to a query regarding the bomb’s effects on its intended target, an Islamic State tunnel complex in Nangahar province.

What a fucking waste.

@xdude85: it's HUUUUUUGE though, and I think when it comes to questions of US policy in that part of the world, we can all agree this is the exact type of nuance we've been missing.

Trump vowed to wipe ISIS 'from the face of the Earth'.

At least this is a start.

@xdude85: Perhaps they are compensating for something? :P

@xdude85: That whole quote is nonsense. The whole article says next to nothing. How could you possibly draw any conclusions from any of that?

New recruiting tool I guess..........

This is hilarious. So much talk about the size of this thing yet I'm seeing very little talk on what, if any, impact it had in the fight. Very telling.

Trump makes it great to be an American

I love the fact that finally when you don't do anything to stop terrorists from living in your land you have your land blown up.

I have heard so many liberals "oh but ISIS isn't a country, you're bombing another country"

Damn right, and they'll be a parking lot unless they roll up their sleeves and start helping.

Very telling? What does it say to you?

Hm? I thought it was self-explanatory, I'll help you out. Refer to everything after the first sentence:

It was unclear what the GBU-43 strike accomplished, as the bomb is not designed to penetrate hardened targets such a bunkers or cave complexes. A spokesman for U.S. forces in Afghanistan did not respond to a query regarding the bomb’s effects on its intended target, an Islamic State tunnel complex in Nangahar province.

This is pertinent information. Makes me think it's yet another strike simply for show with no significant damage, just like the Syrian airstrike over the weekend and that same base was up and running not even 24 hours after. It reminds me of Vietnam where the administration at the time employed similar tactics like describing the size of attacks and not actually disclosing what, if any, effects they had on the battlefield. Especially that lovely tidbit about U.S. forces not responding to a query regarding the effects. Very telling, indeed.

It also reeks of a cheap tactic to try and boost Trump's approval ratings (which are at record lows), distract from the fact the administration is plagued with scandals, incompetence, and in-fighting, and that he has no legislative accomplishments to speak of while we very close to the symbolic "100 days". I don't blame him at all though, after the response from the media after the Syrian attack (including Brian Williams having an orgasm live on air) it seems to be working and fooling the morons at CNN like Van Jones. May as well hope the same trick works twice.

Call me a wuss, but I dont look at this as a good thing.

@perfect_blue: So you have no actual information but feel totally comfortable drawing conclusions. Since when has the military been responsible disclosing the details about every battlefield bombing? How could this 'journalist' know more than Mattis and the military about what munitions are appropriate for a given situation?

After Trump's sound beating of Hillary in the election, I find myself infinitely skeptical of any approval ratings the media may share with us. I'm also certain that Trump could care less about people like Van Jones and Brian Williams.

So it tells you what again?

Where did I make the claim that the military should disclose "details about every battlefield bombing"? I merely said it's telling that they ignored a direct query on it. Why bother even replying if you're going to poison the well and act dishonest from the very start by putting words in my mouth? It makes it difficult to have a discussion because I don't know if you are actually discussing in good faith. The writer in the article was also a military Marine infantryman. I don't think it's a stretch to believe he's a credible source on military weaponry.

Also, it is quite telling and shows how much you know if you are equating election polling with approval ratings - they aren't remotely the same thing.

And it was authorized by none other than Jack Nicholson!

But it's really really not! It was the chaotic situation that was caused by bombings that allowed a group like ISIS to seize power in the first place.

Would like to see some video.

I hope it killed everything that makes me sad.

The problem with statistics is that you can guide them where you want them to be.

Like Churchill said "i don't trust any statistic except the one i made myself".

So of course you should not trust any polls particular not when you know what side the media like CNN is on.

Nice troll attempt there

But you care to elaborate on what you think the world should do about ISIS? give them flowers or sit down and sing "kumbaya" while we braid each others hair?

I didn't say you claimed the military should disclose the details for every bomb they drop, but you chose to cherry pick this one. They used the ordinance because it was the right ordinance to use. Something tells me Mattis and the generals in charge of the operations in the middle east are better at picking out bombs than an infantryman.

Statistics that get shared via traditional media sources are still statistics that shape perception. The perception was that Trump stood no chance against Hillary--unless you considered the more savvy polling organizations who released their numbers towards the end of the race (which were far more accurate based on their methodology, which was fascinating).

Phrases like, "it's quite telling" are completely meaningless because it forces the reader to assume you are correct. It doesn't display any sort of critical analysis and it doesn't create any discussion points.

Bonus thoughts: And why is anyone still relying on the Washington Post for news? They're totally unreliable (dare I say fake news?). This is another fantastic example of why nobody should be reading the Washington Post. Here's information from US Central Command curated by Wired:

Most conventional bombs—like the Joint Direct Attack Munitions the US regularly drops on Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan—will be some small percentage of explosive, and a much larger part casement that will kill people by bursting apart into a thousand pieces. The Moab takes the inverse approach.

Its objective? Create a blast big enough to reach deep into areas that other conventional bombs can’t....

Jdams won’t work to get into deep tunnels, because the fragmentary material they shoot out stops at the first twist the tunnel takes. To avoid them, combatants just need to go deeper into the tunnel. Bombs designed specifically to penetrate underground pose similar problems. Though effective when targeting individual below-ground targets, they struggle with crippling long, winding networks. That’s where a massive concussive bomb has the advantage: Its blast can turn corners, and push all the way to the furthest reaches of a cave.

So, the MOAB was made for this kind of target. Despite the Washington Post telling you they didn't get a response from inquiry, thus casting doubt on the strike.

It's a simple concept. Let's look, too, at the days and hours leading up to the Brexit vote. No way was it going to pas.......

Wipe those Islamic bastards from the face of the earth!

When it comes to what munition is used by the military, we should defer judgement to those with knowledge. Whether or not the military explained anything to the media is irrelevant. Remember Geraldo?

That moment, which I remember watching live as it happened, nearly MOAB'd his career.

That link you posted seems to contradict itself and one part agrees with the prior WaPo article. Specifically, this part:

In trying to understand what makes the Moab different, it’s helpful to understand what it isn’t. Aside from not being a nuclear weapon, it’s also not a penetrator or “bunker buster,” meant to burrow deep into the ground. Rather, it’s a concussive bomb designed to explode above ground and create a massive blast.

Then later on in the article it contradicts itself via that quote you posted. So, what do we believe here and why?

Presidential approval ratings have been done by Gallup Polling (officially, at least, other sources do their own) since the 1930's and are generally considered a reliable and accepted indicator of the public's feelings regarding a President. For one thing they don't have to take into account people actually going out and voting, like in election polling.

Why is the Washington Post unreliable? They've won yet another Pulitzer Prize this past week and are second to The New York Times in awards. I'm interested in reading why you think so since that is not an opinion I see often. What would you consider a reliable paper/source of news?

The journalist doesn't really know?

If that's the case I'm perplexed why musicalmac linked to an article that contradicts itself yet seemed confident in presenting it as irrefutable proof.

Yup same with Trump´s win.

The problem with those is that particular the "liberals" tend to go all out on portraying anyone opposing them as bigots, racists, homophobic etc... etc.....

And when you before you even begin to debate have to defend yourself, there is no point in begining.

This is so obtuse. Polling is a statistical science that will always contain a measure of uncertainty. To say that polling isn't accurate because some polls have been wrong is monumentally ignorant. This is even truer when margins of error are with in or extremely close to the projected outcome. I might also remind you that national polling was actually SPOT ON with Hillary winning the popular vote by over 2% which is predicted by most polls.

We always remember the polls that were 'off' but we never seem to bring up the statistical polling that is spot on. If polling and statistics was just a 'tool' to deceive people and didn't work we wouldn't have multi-million dollar consulting firms selling their data to the largest corporations on the planet. We wouldn't have an entire branch of mathematics revolving around it. Hell, we could probably count out most marketing firms as well.

If polls are off we need to research and re-calibrate 'why' they might have been off in order to rectify and somewhat future proof polling methods down the line. It's never going to be a perfect science by the very nature of it, and to expect 100% accuracy and certainty from polling means that you've failed to grasp the core concept of it to begin with .

Okay. And?

Trumpette: "I support Trump because he'l MAGA!!!1"

Common sense folks: "Okay. How?"

T: "He'll lock up Clinton and ban those raghead Muzlims!!1"

CSF: "Hey man, you do realize that's not going to happen right? Also, what you said was very bigoted. Many Muslims have done great things and --"

T: "SHUT UP!!!1 TYPICAL LOLIBERAL CALLING ME RACIST. I AIN'T NO RAICST I GOT BLAK FRIENDS!!!111 THOSE MUSLIMS WAT SHARIA LAW AND KILL US AND EAT THE GAYZ!!!!!!!1"

CSF: "wha--"

T: "SHUT UP! TYPICAL LIBERALS CALLING ME RACIST CAN'T THINK OF COUNTERARGUMENTS BECUZ LIBERALS ARE DUMB!"

*Retreats to Trump rally*

*Proceeds to hump fellow Trump supporter while being groped by Trump*

MAGA

-----

But seriously, maybe it's because Republican policies and opinions are inherently racist, counterproductive, and/or downright stupid? I mean, it really depends on the argument being made.

Good. ISIS has shown they are barbaric in every sense of the word and should **** off.

Ehmmmmm, are you having a stroke?

But as to my comment , it´s still valid

There is a reason goodwin exist, and that argument is not limited to that group anymore, it can be applied to the way liberals/democrats try to debate.

Sure thing pal. If you don't want to believe in facts and historical context, you can always claim that those mean ol' liberals just called you racist.

Eh? i never said anyone called me a racist.

I spoke in a general term about how one group tend to debate or more accurate how they don´t debate but throw around accusations and take so low that you sometimes wonder if you are listening to a 2nd grader.

And what facts and historical content?

Don't expect much from him. He said multiple people in another forum should go to KKK meetings.

Still waiting for that evidence that Muslim refugees are killing American citizens on an unprecedented scale.

Also, go back and read my statement on the thread where you claimed that the illegal immigrant was probably a drug dealer. Maybe then, you'll understand why I said, "How was your KKK meeting?"

No excuse to promote hate speech.

Then why do you keep promoting it when you say everyone who hates Trump is a communist and claim an illegal immigrant to be a drug dealer with no evidence to back that up?

No excuse, amirite?

That illegal immigrant had a high chance of being a drug dealer. Most of the criminals that come from Mexico are in drug cartels. Common sense.

People that hate trump want socialism/communism. Trump wants freedom. Learn to see the difference.

So you're making excuses and still got no evidence.

People that hate liberals want to lynch blacks and cover women's bodies. Liberals want equality among all races and both sexes. Learn to see the difference.

Could have fooled me.

Maybe he is just doing what every liberal/snowflake is doing.

Not forgetting that even your precious Clinton called half of America deplorables.

And me.

From what i can see Liberals/snowflakes/democrats wants to oppress anyone who does not agree with them.

Who's suppressing the vote in Georgia and in most of the states with voter ID laws? Republicans or Democrats? Who is willing to restrict/remove/deny equal rights to the LGBT community? I'm pretty sure that the majority of Democrats support allowing gay couples to adopt and get married.

You use the word "snowflake" but don't even know what it is. Grow up, kid. There are Democrats and liberals who have served their country honorably either in the military, police, fire/ems and who have done amazing things for this country. The same with conservatives and Republicans.

regarding the bomb ( getting back on topic ). i have no problem with it.

i assume commanders are given plenty of freedom by any administration in selecting ordinance appropriate for their target. that is their job, though i suspect that it was probably pushed for by the trump administration simply because "it is the biggest" and trump doesn't appear to be the kind of person that can think beyond things like that, though i have no proof. would a bomb specifically designed to penetrate underground structures have been more effective / less costly? i don't know.

the collecting jizzing of the pants over it by the rwmsm is fun to watch though. nothing makes them feel like a tuff guy more than watching someone else kill people.

Sorry? i don´t know what a snowflake is? well then please explain your "opinion" of the term.

And as to who has done what, who is trying to suppress religious freedoms? who is trying to censor people, censor universities or who went to the UN and actually stood up and wanted to take away fundamental freedoms secured by the constitution because they didn't like Free speech. Not to mention who wants "safe spaces" which is their way of wanting to go back to segregation

So come on , you can´t be that gullible that you can´t see that.