US drops MOAB bomb in Afghanistan

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,931
31,457
146
Looks like the "Hate America" crowd is out in force, time to protest folks.

yeah, I know. I was wondering when you guys would shut up. But here you are, even after "winning" this fuckstick into power, you just can't stop. Keep on dicking this country into the big ol dickhole you want it to be.

It's hilarious how you once wanted Trumplewinks to stop being involved in the middle east. Now it gives you a hard-on.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
17,456
16,777
146
I don't know, maybe it has something to do with the blast radius, genius.

I don't disagree with you in principle, and I think Taj is being an antagonistic arse, but in all likelihood the local commanders wouldn't have authorized the use of something so big unless the only thing to hit in the area was the Bad Guys(tm). If anything, we can be thankful that the keys were handed over to (ironically) smarter minds.

Mind you, this kind of thing has the potential to backfire in a really really big way, the second something looks like a nail but is really a rifle round and a commander hammers the shit out of it.
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,531
5,758
136
That's assuming you didn't count the Reagan era Mujaheddin support, so half a century would be more precise IMO.

That's back in the days when everyone wore plain old Rayban aviator sunglasses out in the field and didn't wear uniforms.
Way before those stupid oakleys.

Therefore 80's stuff don't count.

Summary.
If advisor wears Ray Bans, doesn't count.
If advisor wears Oakleys, counts.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,242
14,244
136
Thousands of airstrikes were conducted under the Obama administration. Did he personally sign off and each and every one of them, including what specific munitions were used? AFAIK when there's a bombing campaign, the POTUS authorizes the campaign, with strict rules on target selection meant to minimize civilian casualties. I don't think the POTUS micromanages every bombing run. For a special ops mission like in Yemen, yes of course the POTUS must sign off. But those are one off events with special risks, not one bombing run out of thousands.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
17,456
16,777
146
Thousands of airstrikes were conducted under the Obama administration. Did he personally sign off and each and every one of them, including what specific munitions were used? AFAIK when there's a bombing campaign, the POTUS authorizes the campaign, with strict rules on target selection meant to minimize civilian casualties. I don't think the POTUS micromanages every bombing run. For a special ops mission like in Yemen, yes of course the POTUS must sign off. But those are one off events with special risks, not one bombing run out of thousands.

I think that's the point, Trump has signed off for some (all?) military commanders to implement their own battle tactics and campaign targets/methods, and the POTUS did not sign off on the yemen attack in question (per the links above). This may/may not be a bad thing, depending on your perspective and the mental discipline/intelligence of the commanders in question.
 

flexy

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2001
8,464
155
106
I wasn't feeling this outright jolly and like silly dancing flooded with infinite happiness since they took Kandahar, back in 2001!

"Gee, golly wow Boy, we've got 'em now Kandahar!"
"Kandahar!"
"Say, Taliban Move your minivans Kandahar!"
"Kandahar! Kandahar! Kandahar!"

And now they took Nangarhar! MIND.BLOWN. So happy!!
 

alien42

Lifer
Nov 28, 2004
12,876
3,303
136
Thousands of airstrikes were conducted under the Obama administration. Did he personally sign off and each and every one of them, including what specific munitions were used? AFAIK when there's a bombing campaign, the POTUS authorizes the campaign, with strict rules on target selection meant to minimize civilian casualties. I don't think the POTUS micromanages every bombing run. For a special ops mission like in Yemen, yes of course the POTUS must sign off. But those are one off events with special risks, not one bombing run out of thousands.

this wasn't just another airstrike or bombing, this was literally the first time we have ever dropped a bomb this big since dropping those nukes on Japan. so yes, we should expect the OK for this to come from the President.
 

GagHalfrunt

Lifer
Apr 19, 2001
25,284
1,998
126
Bombin', Golfin' and cake, THE AMERICAN DREEEEEEEAM
88707327fb09b4cbbf44a722fb628dba.jpg

Bombing, golfing and apple pie.
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,673
482
126
Yep it's all diversion

I don't think it's a diversion, but I do worry that Trump will see cable news orgasming over this and think "Wow, we should blow up shit more often! Look at all the good press!"

And if his poll numbers go up, hoo boy.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
22,391
5,004
136
Yeah, way to tap dance, jackass. Just step up and say 'I've delegated control of local military forces, to include munitions and operators, to the local military commanders'.

I swear, for a multi-billionaire president, he sure is spineless.

Better than the micromanagement like we had in Vietnam...
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
17,456
16,777
146
Better than the micromanagement like we had in Vietnam...

I don't disagree with the notion itself of granting battlefield/campaign decisions to commanders, but I hate, hate, hate when leaders tiptoe around what they did and why. Just state that you did it, why (if pressed), and why not other methods (if pressed). Dancing around makes you look like a soft, beta, second rate leader. And more importantly it makes him look like there's a *reason* he's delegating everything, because he can't handle the pressure of the decisions himself, even the decisions to delegate.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
I think that's the point, Trump has signed off for some (all?) military commanders to implement their own battle tactics and campaign targets/methods, and the POTUS did not sign off on the yemen attack in question (per the links above). This may/may not be a bad thing, depending on your perspective and the mental discipline/intelligence of the commanders in question.

Gen. John Nicholson as the commanding officer in Afghanistan and would be the one to sign off. Absolutely no reason for it go higher and a MOAB is the perfect weapon for the purpose as the overpressure would collapse every tunnel in the area.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
17,456
16,777
146
Gen. John Nicholson as the commanding officer in Afghanistan and would be the one to sign off. Absolutely no reason for it go higher and a MOAB is the perfect weapon for the purpose as the overpressure would collapse every tunnel in the area.

I thought that the primary reason for the story on the 3rd was that traditionally, new campaigns/pushes in a given campaign are going through the WH before being implemented, and this is something that Trump has altered to remove the WH from the equation. Is that incorrect? I wouldn't consider this to be the case during something large-scale (like a world war) due to time constraints being more pertinent.

For the record, I agree regarding the MOAB, I think it's great to see some of this multimillion dollar hardware actually put to use instead of us paying to maintain it in a warehouse/bunker.
 

FIVR

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2016
3,753
911
106
That bomb is a joke compared to a full salvo from a TOS-1A (which has been used already during the battle for Ramouseh Artillery College in east alleppo. The Rebels and isis have been on the receiving end of some of the most devastating weaponry for years They will shake this off. The bomb itself is flawed, It cannot be dropped from any medium bomber (F111, F18, F35). It also has to be air-dropped from a C-130 Cargo plane and therefore is completely useless against anyone with any kind of modern air defenses. It' might have some use in hitting a cave, in that it is massive. There are specific munitions for cave penetration that can only be carried by B-1s because they have to be dropped at supersonic speeds to penetrate 100m+ concrete. This is just a giant barrel filled with RDX. It's definitely dangerous, though. But it has to be 25% of news coverage right now. Russia scandal is maybe 1% and that's on the "liberal" networks like CNN and msnbc.


I think Trump is learning a new trick: Launch some missiles or bomb somebody, and suddenly all the attention being payed to your corrupt and likely criminal administration disappears. Suddenly, Lindsay Graham is praising you on national television. People who hated you, now pretend to think you're smart! What do you do? Well, you start bombing more stuff!

People won't have time to hear anything about your crazy russian bank ties and pee pee videos if we go to war and all the nationalist military ball-lickers will suddenly act like Trump is a God. You saw that already with Graham, a man who called Trump a lying scam artist.


Trump is going to start a war soon. He has to, and I think Syria is his "easiest' pick.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Thebobo