U.S. Drops Largest Non-Nuclear Bomb in Afghanistan targeting ISIS

Thirty Bills Unpaid

RYME said:

Cliffy6745 said:

This seems like a pretty pretty remote area. If this were dropped on a cave/tunnel complex with no civilian causalities, what is the issue? Big if...

Yeah 92 ISIS members dead, no civilian casualties. Can anyone call a win a win? Or no matter what Trump is a bafoon?
I didn't agree with much of what Present Obama did. But he did some good ​things that I alpoded. When they got Binladden that was super. And kudos to Obama for oking the mission!
The hipocracy is that if Obama had dropped this bigass bomb or if Hillary had won and this had occured, lefties would've been fine with it. But because it happened now, it's bad bad bad. And no President Trump is not in the business of dropping​ nuclear bombs. That is assumption is nutty.

I alpoded when Obama did an odd good thing too such as the one you mentioned: 'getting Binladden after oking the mission'.

To your question though... yes... no matter what... Trump is a buffoon. He's the rare orange variety buffoon identifiable by their orange tint, small hands, obnoxious behaviour towards others, and soiled khakis.

A leopard can't change its spots (by saying this, RYME, I simply mean to imply that a person is who they are).

Drowned Out

mcgruff10 said:

Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?

Bentleyspop

Drowned Out said:

Did anyone notice that the same day the US dropped this MOAB, they made public a nuke test in nevada, of an underground bomb that could take out North Korea's nuclear facilities?
...and nuke tests are what they're threatening North Korea over?
Mother of all dry runs?

US fighter drops mock nuclear bomb on Nevada test site
http://wwlp.com/2017/04/15/us-fighter-drops-mock-nuclear-bomb-on-nevada-test-site/amp/

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Bentleyspop said:

Drowned Out said:

Did anyone notice that the same day the US dropped this MOAB, they made public a nuke test in nevada, of an underground bomb that could take out North Korea's nuclear facilities?
...and nuke tests are what they're threatening North Korea over?
Mother of all dry runs?

US fighter drops mock nuclear bomb on Nevada test site
http://wwlp.com/2017/04/15/us-fighter-drops-mock-nuclear-bomb-on-nevada-test-site/amp/

In all honesty... is there a significant portion of the US population that actually has the stomach to drop another nuclear bomb? In other words, does the current US administration feel they've got the green light to use atomic weaponry?

mcgruff10

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?

You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

My question was geared towards gauging mentality.

I'm curious to know what the sentiment is for such a display of force. What percentage of the population would see such an act as something appropriate in a conflict setting?

mcgruff10

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

My question was geared towards gauging mentality.

I'm curious to know what the sentiment is for such a display of force. What percentage of the population would see such an act as something appropriate in a conflict setting?

bro we drop an atomic bomb i'm moving in with you. hope you have room for seven.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

My question was geared towards gauging mentality.

I'm curious to know what the sentiment is for such a display of force. What percentage of the population would see such an act as something appropriate in a conflict setting?

bro we drop an atomic bomb i'm moving in with you. hope you have room for seven.

We will house the overflow at PJSoul's pad!

Speaking of her... she's been kind of quiet lately.

Drowned Out

mcgruff10 said:

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?

You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?

it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.

Drowned Out

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

My question was geared towards gauging mentality.

I'm curious to know what the sentiment is for such a display of force. What percentage of the population would see such an act as something appropriate in a conflict setting?

Depends how it's sold to them. Using the word 'tactical' is a pretty good pitch.

oftenreading

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?

You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?

it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.

And thus the problem. We didn't learn anything from our last experiments with nukes, other than "let's make the next one better!".

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Drowned Out said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

My question was geared towards gauging mentality.

I'm curious to know what the sentiment is for such a display of force. What percentage of the population would see such an act as something appropriate in a conflict setting?

Depends how it's sold to them. Using the word 'tactical' is a pretty good pitch.

An awesome word for sure that will most assuredly garner approving head nods in the aftermath.

As part of the sell job... don't forget the fore play that must occur: for example... knowing full well what your intentions are... strike fear within the population using tried, tested and true blue chip terminology like 'weapons of mass destruction' and 'bioweapons' leading up to the event.

unsung

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Supposedly over 100 dead

And 200 new terrorists born. Woot?

Um, you are preaching to the choir.

mcgruff10

oftenreading said:

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?

You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?

it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.

And thus the problem. We didn't learn anything from our last experiments with nukes, other than "let's make the next one better!".

Is that what canadians say when their government tests nuclear weapons?

brianlux

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcW_Ygs6hm0

unsung

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Bentleyspop said:

Drowned Out said:

Did anyone notice that the same day the US dropped this MOAB, they made public a nuke test in nevada, of an underground bomb that could take out North Korea's nuclear facilities?
...and nuke tests are what they're threatening North Korea over?
Mother of all dry runs?

US fighter drops mock nuclear bomb on Nevada test site
http://wwlp.com/2017/04/15/us-fighter-drops-mock-nuclear-bomb-on-nevada-test-site/amp/

In all honesty... is there a significant portion of the US population that actually has the stomach to drop another nuclear bomb? In other words, does the current US administration feel they've got the green light to use atomic weaponry?

As long as John McCain is alive, yes.

mcgruff10

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?

You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?

it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.

it really is easy to be a monday morning quarterback huh?

rgambs

mcgruff10 said:

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?

You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?

it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.

it really is easy to be a monday morning quarterback huh?

You are severely underestimating analysts and experts who could, and did, predict these results from the end of WWII onward.

mcgruff10

rgambs said:

mcgruff10 said:

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?

You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?

it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.

it really is easy to be a monday morning quarterback huh?

You are severely underestimating analysts and experts who could, and did, predict these results from the end of WWII onward.

Could you please point me to these analysts who predicted this? and from world war 2 onwards?! wow.
who knew on august 9, 1945 japan and the united would be really close allies in 2017?!
who knew one of the men responsible for the v2 rocket would put 2 americans on the moon in 1969?
Crazy that supporting iraq in the 80's would come back to bite us in the ass.

being a monday morning quarterback is easy

rgambs

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

mcgruff10 said:

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?

You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?

it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.

it really is easy to be a monday morning quarterback huh?

You are severely underestimating analysts and experts who could, and did, predict these results from the end of WWII onward.

Could you please point me to these analysts who predicted this? and from world war 2 onwards?! wow.
who knew on august 9, 1945 japan and the united would be really close allies in 2017?!
who knew one of the men responsible for the v2 rocket would put 2 americans on the moon in 1969?
Crazy that supporting iraq in the 80's would come back to bite us in the ass.

being a monday morning quarterback is easy

The destabilisation of the Middle East was not a surprise for anyone. Period.

I don't know how Japan and the Moon are relevant.