On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:27:05 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:20:21 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/16/2017 10:50 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 08:37:05 -0400 (EDT), justan wrote:

Thats a dumb plan. Throwing away potentially good explosive
devices. The old stuff still can be dropped and cause blunt force
trauma even if the explosivefails. Waste not want
not.


It may be a dumb plan but it is how the military operates. This comes
down to chemistry more than politics. Explosives definitely have a
shelf life and beyond that they become unreliable. They may just be
less effective but they can also become more sensitive and that is a
worse problem. The exudate that oozes out of shells loaded with TNT
can be very dangerous.
Military explosives generally have longer shelf lives than commercial
explosives but that is simply more than a few years out to 20 or so.


You keep saying that and I don't disagree with you when it comes to
cheap, WWII era ordnance or .45 rounds that you apparently had some
experience in disposing of in 1965. But, what makes you think or what
evidence do you have that today, 52 years later (half a century) that
the same policy exists for $15M a pop weapons?

Because TNT is still TNT?
I did a lot of reading on this but I can't find anything like the CG
"282" manual online that defined storage and classification of
ordinance. I did see references to explosives like Semtex and RDX
saying they were only at their prime for 10 years. (by a company
selling a replacement)
I also heard the actual production cost of the MOABs was $170k or so
and you get to $16 million by dividing the $340m program cost by the
21 bombs they built. If you recycled the guidance package and just
demilled the barrel bomb it guides, no doubt that would still be
cheaper but I bet there is a better guidance package out there now too
so it is likely to be chucked.

This is DoD, a billion here, a billion there and pretty soon we are
talking about real money. (Proxmire)
Do you really think they are worried about a couple hundred grand?

How many multi billion dollar weapons systems have we built that were
designed, built, deployed and then scrapped without ever firing a shot
in anger? (and I don't just mean ballistic missiles and nukes)

Read the link I posted about MOAB costs. Washington Post, Times, and even Harry got it all wrong.

On 4/16/2017 5:27 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:20:21 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/16/2017 10:50 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 08:37:05 -0400 (EDT), justan wrote:

Thats a dumb plan. Throwing away potentially good explosive
devices. The old stuff still can be dropped and cause blunt force
trauma even if the explosivefails. Waste not want
not.


It may be a dumb plan but it is how the military operates. This comes
down to chemistry more than politics. Explosives definitely have a
shelf life and beyond that they become unreliable. They may just be
less effective but they can also become more sensitive and that is a
worse problem. The exudate that oozes out of shells loaded with TNT
can be very dangerous.
Military explosives generally have longer shelf lives than commercial
explosives but that is simply more than a few years out to 20 or so.


You keep saying that and I don't disagree with you when it comes to
cheap, WWII era ordnance or .45 rounds that you apparently had some
experience in disposing of in 1965. But, what makes you think or what
evidence do you have that today, 52 years later (half a century) that
the same policy exists for $15M a pop weapons?

Because TNT is still TNT?
I did a lot of reading on this but I can't find anything like the CG
"282" manual online that defined storage and classification of
ordinance. I did see references to explosives like Semtex and RDX
saying they were only at their prime for 10 years. (by a company
selling a replacement)
I also heard the actual production cost of the MOABs was $170k or so
and you get to $16 million by dividing the $340m program cost by the
21 bombs they built. If you recycled the guidance package and just
demilled the barrel bomb it guides, no doubt that would still be
cheaper but I bet there is a better guidance package out there now too
so it is likely to be chucked.

This is DoD, a billion here, a billion there and pretty soon we are
talking about real money. (Proxmire)
Do you really think they are worried about a couple hundred grand?

How many multi billion dollar weapons systems have we built that were
designed, built, deployed and then scrapped without ever firing a shot
in anger? (and I don't just mean ballistic missiles and nukes)



Heh. And they call me Luddite. :-)

I can give you some first hand, much more contemporary examples of what
it's like to be under contract directly with the DoD or as a second tier
sub to major DoD contractors, but it would take a book and bore the hell
out of anyone. Let's just say that they are not as free spending as you
might like to believe and there are reasons for it.

I am not saying you are wrong Greg. It's just that things have changed
over the years.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:33:44 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:39:13 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/16/2017 1:02 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:24:06 -0400,
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:20:57 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

I think the solution lies with the muslim world. We're not getting the
kind of help or leadership from any of the Muslim countries that we
need.

===

You're absolutely right about that. Pakistan is arguably one of the
more advanced Muslim countries and they're still stoning people to
death for blasphemy.



So what? Why do we care what they do in their own country? There are
plenty of western europeans who think we are barbarians too.

I have to chuckle sometimes Greg but your comment (above) is why your
Libertarian Party candidates will never stand a chance of being POTUS.

Most people are horrified to see a woman being buried up to her neck in
dirt and then stoned to death by her community ... often including her
husband ... for suspicion of having an adulterous affair or making a
blasphemous statement of Islam.

Even Rand Paul, technically a Republican but with very strong
Libertarian views, has a softer heart than that.


I am as horrified as I am when the savages in Africa do similar things
to their people but I would not risk my kid's life to stop them ...
and evidently that view is shared by most Americans vis a vis Africa.

3d world people have different values and bombing them does not seem
to change that.

I would not be at all against taking action in Africa similar to what we are doing in Syria. And, in
some cases I would be agreeable to inserting troops - SEALs or whatever. Leaving the problems to the
UN 'peacekeepers' seems to be causing even more trouble.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:38:03 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 11:00:29 -0700 (PDT), Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:24:06 -0400,
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:20:57 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

I think the solution lies with the muslim world. We're not getting the
kind of help or leadership from any of the Muslim countries that we
need.

===

You're absolutely right about that. Pakistan is arguably one of the
more advanced Muslim countries and they're still stoning people to
death for blasphemy.

So what? Why do we care what they do in their own country? There are
plenty of western europeans who think we are barbarians too.

I can't believe you said that.

Why? For the same reason you'd get ****ed if the guy across the street from you was kicking the **** out of his dog!

If it was the guy on my street I would be upset but I am not going to
Korea and tell a guy he can't eat his dog. Different culture,
different rules.

Personally I don't have a problem with a Korean eating dog meat. I think it's possible to kill a dog
'humanely', just as it is to kill a pig or steer. It's 'inhumane' treatment I'm talking about.
Raping and genitally mutilating 12- year-old girls is inhumane, especially when they've been
kidnapped by the hundreds in the first place.

It is not our place to tell people half way around the world how they
treat their dogs or their people when that has been their culture
since the fall of Rome.

I guess we'll just disagree. The use of chemical weapons by anyone should be stopped.

On 4/16/2017 5:38 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 11:00:29 -0700 (PDT), Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:24:06 -0400,
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:20:57 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

I think the solution lies with the muslim world. We're not getting the
kind of help or leadership from any of the Muslim countries that we
need.

===

You're absolutely right about that. Pakistan is arguably one of the
more advanced Muslim countries and they're still stoning people to
death for blasphemy.

So what? Why do we care what they do in their own country? There are
plenty of western europeans who think we are barbarians too.

I can't believe you said that.

Why? For the same reason you'd get ****ed if the guy across the street from you was kicking the **** out of his dog!

If it was the guy on my street I would be upset but I am not going to
Korea and tell a guy he can't eat his dog. Different culture,
different rules.
It is not our place to tell people half way around the world how they
treat their dogs or their people when that has been their culture
since the fall of Rome.



I guess none of this will ever be straightened out until the aliens from
outer space return to see how their pollination has worked out on earth.
They'll take over the reigns and make everything just hunky dory.

On 4/16/2017 5:42 PM, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 14:10:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I found Greg's comment a bit weird also. I don't think he really
believes it and would be very disappointed if he did. He's a better man
than that despite his Libertarian ways. :-)

It has nothing to do with my virtue, it is my understanding that other
cultures have different rules. As I said, Europe thinks we are pretty
barbaric too. How many homicides did we have last year? How many
executions? How many people are incarcerated?
If we were talking about guns John, Jim, and the rest would be telling
those nancy boys in Europe to mind their own business.



Sorry Greg but as a member of the human species, I can't accept your
rational.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 16:51:26 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 16:34:45 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 12:44:10 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

why we have any interest in the middle east at all. It certainly is
not oil.

Maybe it's just simple humanitarianism.

There are people being ****ed over all over the planet and we really
do not care in most places.

That's true. But that's not to say we shouldn't do what we can where we can. I'd love to see us
doing more to punish the assholes in Africa doing their damndest to rape, plunder and pillage
everything they can, including girls even younger than those Harry likes.

Perhaps we take on those who may present a bigger threat. Of course, if you believe there are no
threats out there, then that is a meaningless point also.

How many kids would you send to Somalia? Congo? Yeah, I thought so.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 16:58:18 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

while the MOAP wipes out
everything on the surface within a mile radius

Doesn't seem like a cave buster to me and that is what the CNN
military guy said. As for "sealing the entrance" even a silly rabbit
knows you should have two holes into a burrow.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:09:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/16/2017 4:34 PM, wrote:


On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 12:44:10 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

why we have any interest in the middle east at all. It certainly is
not oil.

Maybe it's just simple humanitarianism.

There are people being ****ed over all over the planet and we really
do not care in most places.



In terms of percent of GNP, Sweden leads the list for foreign
humanitarian aid by government at just under 1 percent of GNP.
In terms of GNI (whatever that is) Turkey actually is on top.

The USA government direct humanitarian aid by GNP is something like
number 20 on the list.

However, when you add in private and corporate donations, the USA dwarfs
all other nations in total humanitarian aid at about 6.4 billion.
Surprisingly, Turkey is next at $3.2 billion, then the UK at $2.8
billion. (2015 numbers)

I guess it depends on who you say doesn't care.


If the DoD budget is actually Humanitarian aid as has been posed here,
we win ... by a long shot.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:36:04 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

That is even sillier in this context than the one up thread a bit.
If we were just interested in humanitarian causes, we would be bombing
Afghanistan with food, books and satellite connected PCs.
That would be a winning strategy in N Korea too.

You're assuming ISIS and Kim give a rat's ass about their people.

ISIS influence could be blunted with some education and Kim would not
last a week if his people actually understood the lie.