MOAB kill total -- 36 ISIS fighters

Unlike you i never thought .... Originally Posted by Old-T

You should have just ended your post right there!

It would have been "accurate"!

OH, BTW, trying to vilify me is not a good defense ...

.... to your etched ignorance.

Of course, you must have a link to my statement that ...

... "war, bombs, and dead bodies were "funny"..."

I had links and quotes of your dumbass remarks on the "MOAB"!

Unlike you i never thought war, bombs, and dead bodies were "funny".

Only psychotic folks tend to think that way. Originally Posted by Old-T

It's funny when a uni-partier labels folks and spells it wrong... "A Basket of Deplorable's"

Terrorism spiked in Russia after it started nation building again....it will do so in this country too.

You and Trump can celebrate the blowback this creates... oh wait, you do not care about liberal deaths in NYC such as 9/11.

You probably celebrated along with Osama bin Laden



.

You should have just ended your post right there!

It would have been "accurate"!

OH, BTW, trying to vilify me is not a good defense ...

.... to your etched ignorance.

Of course, you must have a link to my statement that ...

... "war, bombs, and dead bodies were "funny"..."

I had links and quotes of your dumbass remarks on the "MOAB"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Links and quotes, yes. Counterpoints, no. What I posted is accurate whether you want it to be so or not. But reality has never been your strong point.

It's funny when a uni-partier labels folks and spells it wrong... "A Basket of Deplorable's" Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

As yes, the seriously insulting slur that I am a poor speller. Check lots of previous threads--I have freely admitted that spelling is a weakness. I am not likely to lose sleep over your weak insults.

As to your post, thank you for pointing out that the MOAB is over a decade old. You might ask LL WHY we had not used it in 14 years (only 8 of which were Obama years). I am sure he will have some answer. But the correct answer is because the trageteers had not found the right targets for them. As I stated, but LL finds offensive, it has always been considered a nitch weapon. Fortunately the people that match targets and weapons in real life don't follow his logic too often.

AMERICAN PRIDE!!!

Links and quotes, yes. Originally Posted by Old-T

In your fantasies it appears!

Let's begin with the "billions" spent on the MOAB "munitions project"!

And please don't insult by reaching back to the 60's!

Next thing you'll be claiming is the Chinese invented "the bomb" when they developed fireworks!

Terrorism spiked in Russia after it started nation building again....it will do so in this country too. Originally Posted by WTF

I should probably tell you I'm sorry Hillarious didn't win, but I'm not sorry she didn't win. Get over it.

In your fantasies it appears!

Let's begin with the "billions" spent on the MOAB "munitions project"!

And please don't insult by reaching back to the 60's!

Next thing you'll be claiming is the Chinese invented "the bomb" when they developed fireworks! Originally Posted by LexusLover

You are incredibly clueless.

The work started in essence and in earnest in the mid-90s. A fair bit of it was done in Albuquerque and other parts of NM--testing was of necessity done in very sparely populated places. Much of the instrumentation for the tests was done by the former nuclear community since they were about the only people with the experience in that arena. DOE invested heavily in that work, as did DoD.

I will try to get you a reasonable estimate in actual CAPE approved numbers, but the estimates in the 1999 cost estimate were $1.2B life cycle cost (RDT&E through disposal) for a very tentative number of weapons. This did not include some mods to the a/c that would carry them.

The program did not move forward initially for two major reasons: (1) questions by the REP WH that there were enough targets to justify the cost, and (2) Congress did not believe the cost estimate; they thought it way too low.

More R&D (not free) was done, Congress & the WH were convinced (actually, they reached a compromise on both the cost est. and the "types of targets" list) and moved forward. Former CJCS General Cartwright was a big proponent, but then he never met a weapon he didn't want someone else to pay for. And subsequent DoD seniors were also not convinced it was the right weapon for the targets they were striking at that time.

So, even though I do not have the exact dollar figure, Congress eventually accepted--and one assumes funded--a number north of $1.2B.

And your version of why the price is actually four zeroes less? Just because you want it to be?

You are incredibly clueless .... Originally Posted by Old-T

You do know when you begin (or end) your post with shit like that it merely demonstrates you've lost the discussion so your only option is to lamely attempt to marginalize others, don't you?

It probably works occasionally on the marginal "intelligence" with which you surround yourself in an effort to appear "superior," but when you emerge from the small pond in which you splash and thrash about ... it doesn't!

Here is your "expert analysis":

The author of that quote is the one who is clueless. "MOABs" have been designed, analyzed, and tested for a long time. A lot longer than most people realize. When used they make great photo-opp coverage, but don't really do much to "destroy" a tunnel complex. Some bunkers, yes. Tunnels/caves, not really. Rubbleize the entrance and destroy several meters into the complex, sure--but "destroy"? No.

When you get a chance, look up the DoD definition of "destroy" a tunnel complex. It is generally defined in terms of "closing the adit for a certain amount of time--typically in hours. Not what most consider "destroyed". And if the adversary was indeed destroyed in the first couple cases because they were not deep enough into the caves--guess what their counter is? Yep, move in deeper. They counter a multi-billion dollar munitions development program with a few strong backs.

One reason the USSR collapsed is we got them to spend themselves into it. We didn't learn that lesson very well. (Actually there ARE a number in DoD who have learned it, but they too often get overturned by presidents and Congresses who like photo ops that play well at reelection time.

One day you'll be informed ...

... now spend the next 4-5 pages trying to bury your stupidity!

After multiple attempts to redirect the discussion it is no longer your ignorance!

It's your stupidity.

Well now, you seem stuck in a rut, both literally and figuratively.

This is four pages long only because you feel a need to cut and past my comments.

The cost of dropping a bomb is the cost of replacing the bomb, plus its delivery cost. It is an ignorant assertion to state otherwise. The r&d cost are irrelevant(sunk).

The commander in the field thought it was the best weapon tto use, and it was in inventory. Trump wasn't consulted.

Given civilian impacts were minimized, the politicians need to stay out of these decisions. So do we. Originally Posted by kehaar

Only socialist school teachers use Old-T's math. It is called "New Math".

Links and quotes, yes. Counterpoints, no. What I posted is accurate whether you want it to be so or not. But reality has never been your strong point.


As yes, the seriously insulting slur that I am a poor speller. Check lots of previous threads--I have freely admitted that spelling is a weakness. I am not likely to lose sleep over your weak insults.

As to your post, thank you for pointing out that the MOAB is over a decade old. You might ask LL WHY we had not used it in 14 years (only 8 of which were Obama years). I am sure he will have some answer. But the correct answer is because the trageteers had not found the right targets for them. As I stated, but LL finds offensive, it has always been considered a nitch weapon. Fortunately the people that match targets and weapons in real life don't follow his logic too often.
Originally Posted by Old-T

misspelled targeteers

The cost of dropping a bomb is the cost of replacing the bomb, plus its delivery cost. It is an ignorant assertion to state otherwise. The r&d cost are irrelevant(sunk).
That is true--if you factor in the cost of developing the target folder, the support package for the strike A/C, and the BDA/BDI afterwards.

But it is NOT true when you are deciding whether or no to develop a new munition you do not yet have.

The commander in the field thought it was the best weapon tto use, and it was in inventory. Trump wasn't consulted.
No one ever said it was a bad weapon for all occasions. And from the initial look, it was likely a good choice for this target. But have you ever wondered WHY we have had them so long without using them?

Given civilian impacts were minimized, the politicians need to stay out of these decisions.
Do you not believe in civilian control of the military any more?

So do we. Originally Posted by kehaar

Who knows, maybe some here were part of the decision process? You never know who is posting here. There have been governors, senators, movie stars, authors, and athletes--and I suspect a few other important folks. Just ask LL.

misspelled targeteers Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Guilty as charged.

Anyone who thinks that civilians ought to have tactical control of the battlefield is an idiot.

Utter and complete.

See: Lyndon B. Johnson.

The question about whether the weapon should have been developed is not relevant to a discussion of whether is should be used. Start another thread.

The money spent developing and testing this weapon is gone. If the weapon is useful(clearly it was) and cost effective, it should be used.

The fact that a weapon like this wasn't used to get Bin Laden in the first place is precisely why civilians need to stay out of the tactical decision making process.