BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Poco Deplorevole

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 20:45:45 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 17:35:50 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 16:55:06 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 14:35:13 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 13:34:08 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:36:20 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 22:06:18 -0400, wrote:

The other end of those "burrows" are in Pakistan.

So why do we even bother.

We simply do our best with what we've got.

Not really or we would have used a MOP

Then we would have spent $16 million and people would have a real bitch. As it is we spent only
$170,000.

I doubt if the MOP would have been as effective over a wide area.

If this was about "caves" a wide area would not be an issue. The MOP
would have put the blast underground and destroyed the caves, not just
knock the dust off the ceiling.
I still am waiting to see how many people in that body count were just
walking around in the open and how many were actually combatants.
I remember "body counts" from 50 years ago. Women, children and water
buffalo got counted right along with the VC and NVA.
Harry buried them all tho ;-)

A MOP is designed to penetrate, deeply, then explode. It is designed for a point target, such as an
underground nuclear weapons production facility. The MOAB is an area weapon with tremendous
overblast designed to crush whatever's below it.

I doubt they will crush a mountain cave. I will believe it when they
show massive cave destruction. If that was so effective, why bother
with a MOP?

Jeeez. A MOP is for a deeply buried point target.

Besides, the MOAB is cheap. The MOPs run about $16 million each.

So do the MOABs if you look at the total program cost divided by the
number we will ever build.

You're confusing the MOP costs and MOAB costs again. Go read some of the articles I've posted.