On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 16:37:06 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 12:48:51 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

We are not talking about a quarter mile, we are talking a few hundred
feet and that cave system is bigger than that.

Were they aiming only at a large mountain containing caves or perhaps the entrance to a particular

It was pointed out by a military guy today on the talking head shows
that if we were really targeting caves, we should have used the MOP,
not the MOAB.

Perhaps, if we needed a lot of penetration. But if the goal was to seal the entrance, then the MOAB
was the right choice.

Here is an article that should squelch some of the whining about the cost of the MOAB. Of course,
Harry won't pay attention, 'cause then facts would confuse him.

"Many reports Thursday, including USA Today, the Washington Examiner, CNBC and others, claimed the
MOAB cost $314 million to develop, citing a 2011 Los Angeles Times report.

The cost estimates in that article, however, only refer to the cost of the Air Force’s biggest
bunker busting bomb, the 5,300 pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), or GBU-57, which is built by
private defense contractor Boeing Company. “At a total cost of about $314 million, the military has
developed and ordered 20 of the GPS-guided bombs, called Massive Ordnance Penetrators,” the LA Times
report says."

further:

"While the two bomb types are related, they serve different functions — the MOP is designed to
destroy underground bunkers as deep as 200 feet below the surface, while the MOAP wipes out
everything on the surface within a mile radius. The MOAB, like its Daisy Cutter predecessor, can
only be dropped out of a C-130 built by Lockheed Martin, and the MOP is deployed from the B-2, a
Boeing aircraft."

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...E2%80%99-20181

Gosh, maybe the military did the right thing after all.