Thinking about this further, taking them out in this is kind of environment is the easiest part, not that it shouldn't be done. The hard part comes when they blend in with the population, as they've done in other areas...
Link: US drops a MOAB in Afghanistan
- Thread starter Displaced Bama Fan
- Start date
I hate to say this but if we do push them out our boys won't be coming back home for a long time. That's when the work begins. Someone has to make sure the little idiots don't come back and we are already there.... and with the aftermath of Iraq so fresh in the minds of leadership it's likely NATO forces (e.g. US forces) will be hanging around for a decade after the fact.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
May be a technicality, but I don't think that the GBU-43/B (MOAB) is a thermobaric weapon. I believe it employs a Fuel-Air Explosive (FAE) which, along with thermobarics, comprise a specific type of munition that is referred to as "volumetric" or colloquially, "vacuum" bombs.
That's not to say that it doesn't produce incredible damage and similar effects as a thermobaric weapon. They are both designed to produce an intense and long-period shock wave, accompanied by incinerating heat. In practice, they are similar, which is why they are lumped together under the "volumetric" label. But they achieve the effect slightly differently. Both essentially produce a vapor or particulate explosion, similar to what sometimes occurs in industrial accidents (coal dust,etc). But whereas thermobarics use unoxidized fuel containing high-energy particulates which are subsequently ignited, relying on environmental oxygen, FAEs use fuel containing an oxidizer and a powdered dispersible - usually a metal, which is ignited by the initial blast. In the case of the MOAB, that powder consists primarily of aluminum. The same explosive is used in many charges designed for underwater emplyment such as depth charges. Consequently, it requires an internal oxidizer. Semantics, mostly. But true thermobarics are a good bit more efficient and can produce an equivalent blast yield at a higher temperature, with a much smaller load.
Your friend may be conflating the MOAB with Russia's answer to the MOAB, the "FOAB" (Father Of All Bombs - no, not kidding), formally the Aviation Thermobaric Bomb of Increased Power (ATBIP), which is purported by the Russians to be thermobaric and 4 times as powerful as the MOAB. The veracity of both of those claims (being thermobaric and true yield) are in question by many defense analysts however.
I don't like Trump as is well established, but I AM fair regardless of whom we're talking about.
If Trump did nothing about ISIS, the peanut gallery would be saying, "He didn't do anything about it, all he did was complain."
He drops a bomb that took out how many ISIS folks, including four commanders (I've seen different numbers) and ZERO civilians (so far).....and folks still complain. Politics sure is funny - some of the same folks praising Trump would go bonkers if Obama had done this - and some of the folks going bonkers about Trump would be saying, "Hey, Obama actually did something about it."
This has no bearing upon whether Trump is a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic. But I'm not convinced that killing a bunch of ISIS folks and zero civilians is a bad thing myself.
If Trump did nothing about ISIS, the peanut gallery would be saying, "He didn't do anything about it, all he did was complain."
He drops a bomb that took out how many ISIS folks, including four commanders (I've seen different numbers) and ZERO civilians (so far).....and folks still complain. Politics sure is funny - some of the same folks praising Trump would go bonkers if Obama had done this - and some of the folks going bonkers about Trump would be saying, "Hey, Obama actually did something about it."
This has no bearing upon whether Trump is a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic. But I'm not convinced that killing a bunch of ISIS folks and zero civilians is a bad thing myself.
FWIW, I dont believe he gave specific authorization for this drop or had specific advance knowledge of it.
That's what I drew from him remarks. Now, he may have removed some restraints on commanders which Obama had imposed...
Does anyone think it is a bad thing that this president with no military experience just focuses on policy and allows generals that have been fighting in the middle East for 15 years to make military decisions?
I think it's a great thing if Trump is relying on Mattis and his subordinates to handle the warfare.
Early in his administration, Lincoln got way too involved in the tactical details.
As he learned the job, he got more involved in defining policy, establishing priorities, selecting subordinate commanders (like Grant and Sherman), and leaving the strictly military stuff to them. That worked a lot better.
Now, there is not a bright line between war and politics (Clausewitz said war is a continuation of politics by other means), but when the President is asking where the 2nd New Jersey Infantry is, he is probably getting down in the weeds.
Or he could just come here to learn how to govern and determine national defense policy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
At least you understand the difference in eradicating them and keeping them eradicated. I don't think most do...
Latest threads
-
SEC West Showdown Sends Alabama to Oxford to Meet with Ole Miss- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Davis II Named to Stopper of the Year Midseason Watch List
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Eleven-Run Third Powers Alabama to 14-5 Win over Samford
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Maybe aTm's Pockets Aren't So Bottomless After All -- Layoffs In The Athletic Department
- Started by 4Q Basket Case
- Replies: 6
-
Time to un-vacate 2005-2007 on field victories and un-forfeit the 1993 season?
- Started by CmdrThor
- Replies: 24
-