• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Video of Afghan MOAB blast

Lutherf

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
49,614
Reaction score
55,243
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative


You can see the pressure wave pushing up the valleys. If someone was in a cave in that area it would have been devastating.
 
It leveled the entire area and at least 36 ISIS guys were killed not including those that were in the tunnel if any.
 
Lutherf said:


You can see the pressure wave pushing up the valleys. If someone was in a cave in that area it would have been devastating.
Click to expand...


Yeah that $314 million was sure worth it to kill 36 people. :roll:

Did we win the war against ISIS in Afghanistan now? With that price tag we should have, but didn't. It amazes me how Trump and his supporters tell folks we have to make cuts, can't afford government workers, but then have no problem wasting $314 million dollars on killing 36 people. Now THAT is waste and abuse.
 
Praxas said:
Yeah that $314 million was sure worth it to kill 36 people. :roll:

Did we win the war against ISIS in Afghanistan now? With that price tag we should have, but didn't. It amazes me how Trump and his supporters tell folks we have to make cuts, can't afford government workers, but then have no problem wasting $314 million dollars on killing 36 people. Now THAT is waste and abuse.
Click to expand...

The weapon was deployed to Afghanistan under Obama. :roll:
 
Praxas said:
Yeah that $314 million was sure worth it to kill 36 people. :roll:

Did we win the war against ISIS in Afghanistan now? With that price tag we should have, but didn't. It amazes me how Trump and his supporters tell folks we have to make cuts, can't afford government workers, but then have no problem wasting $314 million dollars on killing 36 people. Now THAT is waste and abuse.
Click to expand...

I guess that depends on who those 36 people were and what they were doing. Speaking purely hypothetically, if they were in the final stages of building a tactical nuke they planned to use in Berlin would it have been worth the $300M to take them out?
 
humbolt said:
The weapon was deployed to Afghanistan under Obama. :roll:
Click to expand...

And? It still doesn't refute what I said. The decision to actually USE it was under Trump and the score card is a $314 million weapon was used to kill 36 people. That's a lousy return on investment no matter HOW much you try and spin.
 
Lutherf said:
I guess that depends on who those 36 people were and what they were doing. Speaking purely hypothetically, if they were in the final stages of building a tactical nuke they planned to use in Berlin would it have been worth the $300M to take them out?
Click to expand...

If you think that was the case I have several bridges in Afghanistan to sell you. You need to stop watching TV shows like 24 and Designated Survivor.
 
Praxas said:
Yeah that $314 million was sure worth it to kill 36 people. :roll:

Did we win the war against ISIS in Afghanistan now? With that price tag we should have, but didn't. It amazes me how Trump and his supporters tell folks we have to make cuts, can't afford government workers, but then have no problem wasting $314 million dollars on killing 36 people. Now THAT is waste and abuse.
Click to expand...

LOL

$16 million for a MOAB. $314 million to develop the whole system.

But not to worry, given the signal just sent, the Trump Administration has shown a willingness to apply principles of economies of scale to the system.
 
Lutherf said:
I guess that depends on who those 36 people were and what they were doing. Speaking purely hypothetically, if they were in the final stages of building a tactical nuke they planned to use in Berlin would it have been worth the $300M to take them out?
Click to expand...

If you happen to be a US ground pounder over there and you have this bomb sitting there you can use instead of going from cave to cave and tunnel to tunnel and personally extinguishing ISIS, does anyone really think the cost of the bomb enters that calculation? You use what you have. We had a MOAB over there, and we used it to good effect.
 
Praxas said:
Yeah that $314 million was sure worth it to kill 36 people. :roll:

Did we win the war against ISIS in Afghanistan now? With that price tag we should have, but didn't. It amazes me how Trump and his supporters tell folks we have to make cuts, can't afford government workers, but then have no problem wasting $314 million dollars on killing 36 people. Now THAT is waste and abuse.
Click to expand...

Actually that $314 million dollar price tag can not be verified and it is false to have the media keep repeating it without proof.

It is being reported today the actual cost of the bomb is unknown. The actual cost of the program isn’t publicly available because the Mother of All Bombs, officially known as GBU-43 or the Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB), is manufactured by the military and not a private defense company.
 
Praxas said:
And? It still doesn't refute what I said. The decision to actually USE it was under Trump and the score card is a $314 million weapon was used to kill 36 people. That's a lousy return on investment no matter HOW much you try and spin.
Click to expand...

https://stopmakingsense.org/2017/01/05/how-many-bombs-did-the-united-states-drop-in-2016/

"In President Obama’s last year in office, the United States dropped 26,171 bombs in seven countries. This estimate is undoubtedly low, considering reliable data is only available for airstrikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya, and a single “strike,” according to the Pentagon’s definition, can involve multiple bombs or munitions. In 2016, the United States dropped 3,027 more bombs—and in one more country, Libya—than in 2015."

The only differences between Trump and Obama's bombing is the size of the bomb and the fact that Trump is open enough with his constituency that we heard about this, while Obama had to keep it a secret from his constituency. Trump said he was going to get rid of ISIS and this sounds like a good start. Do we have any idea what Obama's plan was?
 
Praxas said:
And? It still doesn't refute what I said. The decision to actually USE it was under Trump and the score card is a $314 million weapon was used to kill 36 people. That's a lousy return on investment no matter HOW much you try and spin.
Click to expand...

No spin is necessary except for those who hold the value of the lives of our soldiers in low esteem.
 
While an argument or debate can be had regarding the benefit versus the cost of using the MOAB, it can not be done in any kind of legitimate and honest fashion if the only thing you're considering in the "benefit" category are direct kills.

Injury to the enemy, damage to enemy logistical capabilities (such as the using the tunnels to travel safely), potential removal of levels of leadership, and general psychological impacts of such an attack are just a variety of potential beneficial factors that would need to be assessed.
 
Praxas said:
Yeah that $314 million was sure worth it to kill 36 people. :roll:

Did we win the war against ISIS in Afghanistan now? With that price tag we should have, but didn't. It amazes me how Trump and his supporters tell folks we have to make cuts, can't afford government workers, but then have no problem wasting $314 million dollars on killing 36 people. Now THAT is waste and abuse.
Click to expand...
Now THAT is TDS.
 
Praxas said:
And? It still doesn't refute what I said. The decision to actually USE it was under Trump and the score card is a $314 million weapon was used to kill 36 people. That's a lousy return on investment no matter HOW much you try and spin.
Click to expand...

th


You get much echo in there?
 
ocean515 said:
LOL

$16 million for a MOAB. $314 million to develop the whole system.

But not to worry, given the signal just sent, the Trump Administration has shown a willingness to apply principles of economies of scale to the system.
Click to expand...

Hey, if Trump uses a lot more MOABs and decides not to replace some of them, he can spend the savings on The Wall and say ISIS paid for it.
 
bubbabgone said:
Hey, if Trump uses a lot more MOABs and decides not to replace some of them, he can spend the savings on The Wall and say ISIS paid for it.
Click to expand...
I dunno about that.

But there's rumours going around he's making ISIS pay for the bomb! :2razz:
 
Praxas said:
Yeah that $314 million was sure worth it to kill 36 people. :roll:

Did we win the war against ISIS in Afghanistan now? With that price tag we should have, but didn't. It amazes me how Trump and his supporters tell folks we have to make cuts, can't afford government workers, but then have no problem wasting $314 million dollars on killing 36 people. Now THAT is waste and abuse.
Click to expand...
Oh comon!

To attempt to do an analysis of the efficacy of the use of a tactical weapon based only and solely upon direct kills, is either dishonest or naive.

Others above have also pointed this out.
 
Chomsky said:
Oh comon!

To attempt to do an analysis of the efficacy of the use of a tactical weapon based only and solely upon direct kills, is either dishonest or naive.

Others above have also pointed this out.
Click to expand...
Afternoon Chomsky,

I came across this interview with the ambassador from Afghanistan to the U.S..

According to him, they have been fighting ISIS for weeks but could not get any further because ISIS had heavily mined the area with IUD's. The purpose of dropping that type of bomb, was to destroy the tunnels and caves forcing ISIS out in the open and to destroy all the IUD's.

 
vesper said:
Afternoon Chomsky,

I came across this interview with the ambassador from Afghanistan to the U.S..

According to him, they have been fighting ISIS for weeks but could not get any further because ISIS had heavily mined the area with IUD's. The purpose of dropping that type of bomb, was to destroy the tunnels and caves forcing ISIS out in the open and to destroy all the IUD's.

Click to expand...
Yes, absolutely.

And most importantly, how many American lives were spared?

The tactical & strategic advantages here are nearly too numerous to mention, and would seemingly be obvious.
 
Lutherf said:
I guess that depends on who those 36 people were and what they were doing. Speaking purely hypothetically, if they were in the final stages of building a tactical nuke they planned to use in Berlin would it have been worth the $300M to take them out?
Click to expand...

humbolt said:
If you happen to be a US ground pounder over there and you have this bomb sitting there you can use instead of going from cave to cave and tunnel to tunnel and personally extinguishing ISIS, does anyone really think the cost of the bomb enters that calculation? You use what you have. We had a MOAB over there, and we used it to good effect.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

I'd add the question 'what shape are all the tunnels in? '

If they are all collapsed and ISIS is unable to use them any longer, then yeah, it'd have been worth it to deny ISIS their bomb shelters, stock piles, weapons caches etc. that they were used for. We've already seen that ISIS out in the open is much less of a threat. If this denies them cover, forces them out into the open, surely yes.
 
Chomsky said:
Oh comon!

To attempt to do an analysis of the efficacy of the use of a tactical weapon based only and solely upon direct kills, is either dishonest or naive.

Others above have also pointed this out.
Click to expand...

You're right of course. It's an example of why the metaphor about a drowning man and a straw has been reused so often.
 
eohrnberger said:
Indeed.

I'd add the question 'what shape are all the tunnels in? '

If they are all collapsed and ISIS is unable to use them any longer, then yeah, it'd have been worth it to deny ISIS their bomb shelters, stock piles, weapons caches etc. that they were used for. We've already seen that ISIS out in the open is much less of a threat. If this denies them cover, forces them out into the open, surely yes.
Click to expand...
And let's not forget and important part of the equation:

cost in American lives lost or injured = 0
 
eohrnberger said:
Indeed.

I'd add the question 'what shape are all the tunnels in? '

If they are all collapsed and ISIS is unable to use them any longer, then yeah, it'd have been worth it to deny ISIS their bomb shelters, stock piles, weapons caches etc. that they were used for. We've already seen that ISIS out in the open is much less of a threat. If this denies them cover, forces them out into the open, surely yes.
Click to expand...

I was thinking something along those lines.
Like keeping an eye on activity around that location for anyone trying to dig in or out of what used to be tunnels and use what could be called COMOAB (smaller munition Children Of Mother Of All Bombs) against them.
Pretty soon it'd be "No Samir, don't try to save them ... just tell yourself they're happy to die for Allah."
 
bubbabgone said:
I was thinking something along those lines.
Like keeping an eye on activity around that location for anyone trying to dig in or out of what used to be tunnels and use what could be called COMOAB (smaller munition Children Of Mother Of All Bombs) against them.
Pretty soon it'd be "No Samir, don't try to save them ... just tell yourself they're happy to die for Allah."
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's one of those aspects of Islam that just has me overly puzzled, this seemingly overly willingness to die for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom