Yes, it is a big bomb. It is three orders of magnitude smaller than a nuke. This is a basically a bunch of dynamite. It is designed to take out a bunker of caves, which is exactly what it did.
This does not seem out of line with standard US foreign policy, which is maybe articulated as: bomb them back into the Stone Age*
And please note, I am not advocating the use of force. I'm saying this is in line with conventional US doctrine dating to at least the 60s.
It isn't a big deal from a tactical POV. It's a scaled-up BLU-82 with a very limited set of situations in which it will be useful. Collateral damage is a real concern, which is probably why it hasn't been used before. But it's a great, easy to understand, impressive news item, especially if you have really tiny hands, like baby-sized hands.
It isn't significant except insofar as our country's obsessed with technological advancement without any regard for utility. The MOAB has a yield of about 11 tons of TNT - by way of comparison, just on March 12, 1945, the RAF dropped the equivalent of 4,800 tons of TNT on Dortmund alone. The Halifax Explosion in 1917 was 3,000 tons of TNT.
Jason Morningstar The use of the moab as a cover up is completely possible.
Jason Corley Agreed; more, bigger, stronger. This is why I'm not getting it, as I don't understand why a merely bigger fireball is more impressive than, say, drone warfare.
T. Franzke Can you tell me why this is scary and not, say, a B-52 capable of carrying 32t of high explosives -- roughly double the MOAB?
What disgusts me about this is I think this is the second time we've used unprecedented weaponry. It suggests to me that there are bunch of toys that the military has been told it can't use, and now he's letting them run through all of them.
Also, the phrase "biggest non-nuclear weapon" is horrifying, especially as we're sending an "armada" up to North Korea.
Robert Bohl "Biggest non nuclear" is like calling Jupiter is "largest non-sun mass in the solar system"; true but underlies a real problem of comparison.
I remember a few years ago, we were considering dropping this. It turned out it wasn't the right weapon for the job.
You're right that logically it's not a big deal, but I'm not talking logic. I'm explaining part of why people are freaked out. It's the word "nuclear."
"Come and see the first non-elephant!" Makes you think of elephants.
No I mean I had a possibly false memory of some brand new blow-up technology being used by Trump's administration, along the lines of this bomb we're talking about. But I can't substantiate it so I probably shouldn't have brought it up in the first place.
William Nichols they keep a tight rein on that sort of information, but the fact is that if Trump wants nukes on target they can have nukes on target, anywhere in the world, within hours.
Yes, it is a big bomb. It is three orders of magnitude smaller than a nuke. This is a basically a bunch of dynamite. It is designed to take out a bunker of caves, which is exactly what it did.
ReplyDeleteThis does not seem out of line with standard US foreign policy, which is maybe articulated as: bomb them back into the Stone Age*
And please note, I am not advocating the use of force. I'm saying this is in line with conventional US doctrine dating to at least the 60s.
*Curtis Lemay.
at work now, more thoughts later...
ReplyDeleteIt isn't a big deal from a tactical POV. It's a scaled-up BLU-82 with a very limited set of situations in which it will be useful. Collateral damage is a real concern, which is probably why it hasn't been used before. But it's a great, easy to understand, impressive news item, especially if you have really tiny hands, like baby-sized hands.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't significant except insofar as our country's obsessed with technological advancement without any regard for utility. The MOAB has a yield of about 11 tons of TNT - by way of comparison, just on March 12, 1945, the RAF dropped the equivalent of 4,800 tons of TNT on Dortmund alone. The Halifax Explosion in 1917 was 3,000 tons of TNT.
ReplyDeleteThe sheer about of firepower this thing represents scares me.
ReplyDeleteJason Morningstar The use of the moab as a cover up is completely possible.
ReplyDeleteJason Corley Agreed; more, bigger, stronger. This is why I'm not getting it, as I don't understand why a merely bigger fireball is more impressive than, say, drone warfare.
T. Franzke Can you tell me why this is scary and not, say, a B-52 capable of carrying 32t of high explosives -- roughly double the MOAB?
What disgusts me about this is I think this is the second time we've used unprecedented weaponry. It suggests to me that there are bunch of toys that the military has been told it can't use, and now he's letting them run through all of them.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the phrase "biggest non-nuclear weapon" is horrifying, especially as we're sending an "armada" up to North Korea.
Robert Bohl "Biggest non nuclear" is like calling Jupiter is "largest non-sun mass in the solar system"; true but underlies a real problem of comparison.
ReplyDeleteI remember a few years ago, we were considering dropping this. It turned out it wasn't the right weapon for the job.
You're right that logically it's not a big deal, but I'm not talking logic. I'm explaining part of why people are freaked out. It's the word "nuclear."
ReplyDelete"Come and see the first non-elephant!" Makes you think of elephants.
What's the first time we used unprecedented weaponry?
ReplyDeleteLike I said, "I think." It's a vague memory and Googling, I can't turn anything up.
ReplyDeleteJason Morningstar other than the power on the Carl Vinson, is there anything nuclear on CSG-1? (I have this feeling you may know offhand.)
ReplyDeleteI figured Rob meant the A-bomb in WW2.
ReplyDeleteNo I mean I had a possibly false memory of some brand new blow-up technology being used by Trump's administration, along the lines of this bomb we're talking about. But I can't substantiate it so I probably shouldn't have brought it up in the first place.
ReplyDeleteWilliam Nichols they keep a tight rein on that sort of information, but the fact is that if Trump wants nukes on target they can have nukes on target, anywhere in the world, within hours.
ReplyDeleteRight. The nuclear triad and war powers act ensures that
ReplyDeleteYour original question (as worded) implies an assumption that the drop is a big deal, which I don't think it is.
ReplyDeleteAre you, perhaps, actually trying to ask a different question?
I was answering for why it may be perceived as a big deal, mostly.
ReplyDeleteThe post asked a similar question, I find their analysis pretty good.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/04/14/the-mother-of-all-bombs-isnt-that-big-why-did-it-unsettle-us-so-much/?hpid=hp_no-name_hp-card-posteverything%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.d2994d336172
That's pretty much on target. Thanks, Patty Kirsch
ReplyDelete