MOAB story
 

On 4/16/2017 7:16 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:47:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/16/2017 5:16 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:15:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Why would we send our kids into a war we had no plans of winning?



Ask Truman and LBJ.

Both Bushs learned the lessons of Vietnam. Once a decision was made to
wage a war, it was done so in a manner to win. Harry will yak about
third rate armies, but a Russian tank is a tank regardless and Saddam
had a bunch of them.

Both excursions into Iraq weren't even close in terms of "not winning".

The problem in Iraq is we did not know what a win looked like. We beat
the army and hanged Saddam but nobody asked "what's next"?


Yes, yes, yes Greg. That point has been made a gazillion times.
The issue and point was that when allowed to "win" a battle or war the
US military can do an outstanding job. What came after was not (and is
not) the job of the military.

We did an outstanding job winning battles in Vietnam and how did that
work out? I have no doubt we have the best trained, best equipped and
most motivated military in the world, We will win any extended battle
we get in but without the political will to win the war and a plan for
the peace, we should just stay home.
We have had that problem since we nuked Japan and we should solve that
problem before we fight again. Simply projecting power into a conflict
that we are not prepared to win is simply stupid.



That is exactly the point I tried to make when I initially said that
since WWII political interests have over-ridden military objectives.
It's been said many times. The politicians (I cited Truman and LBJ)
didn't *allow* the military to win the wars although they well could have.

Bush 41 and Bush 43 are exceptions. The wars they got us involved in
were easily and quickly won. The political problems that remained is
what has caused all the problems.

MOAB story
 

On 4/16/2017 7:26 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:54:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


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.

Nobody ever said they treat small contractors fairly. Too bad you
weren't Raytheon but that still does not excuse the inefficiency of
the whole appropriation, development, deployment and scrapping
process.
How many times did they change the specs on you and expect you to eat
the cost? Did you?


I had many contracts with Raytheon's DoD division and with other major
DoD contractors. Also had a few contracts directly with the DoD.

No, I wasn't expected to "eat" a change in spec that affected our work
but there really were not that many of them. I did a pretty good job at
responding precisely to their RFQ's, because our proposal usually became
part of the contract. Any technical issues or requirements that might
be subject to "interpretation" were ironed out before the contract was
signed. I had learned the hard way in another company. The company
lawyer I had told me I would have made a good corporate contracts
lawyer. No thanks.

MOAB story
 

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:01:26 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

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.

If that is your goal, we are going to be at war in 20 countries. The
3d world sucks and we need to get over it.

MOAB story
 

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:06:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.


I am sorry Don Quixote, we will never right all of the world's wrongs.
These savages have lived like that for a couple thousand years and we
are not going to change that by bombing them. It is just the 24 hour
news cycle that even lets us know about it but it is not just going on
in Syria. That is just where the cameras are right now. The **** that
goes down in the jungles of South America, Africa and most of Asia
would shock you too. Civilization as we know it really only exists
among about a third of the world population.

MOAB story
 

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:45:18 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/16/2017 6:31 PM, wrote:
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.



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

So why do we even bother.

MOAB story
 

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 19:00:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/16/2017 6:46 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:36:05 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



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.


The MOAB did the job according to those inspecting the area.

Hmmm the DoD sources are saying the DoD did a good job, whodathunkit.
I am sure there is a big crater and anyone outside the cave was killed
but we could have done that with a stick of cluster bombs. That just
wouldn't have been news when they needed some news.



We are beating this subject to death, but Mrs.E is visiting my son and
his family in South Carolina and I am somewhat bored, so what the hell:

Firstly, the sources who initially reported the results were Afghan
officials who were on site and inspecting up close and personal. I
suppose you'll just say they are in bed with the DoD, but I thought I'd
point that out.

My understanding of how the MOAB works is that it detonates about 6 feet
above the ground. It's primary effect is to generate a massive shock
wave that travels into the caves and down the tunnels, destroying them
and anything in them. The shock wave is what does all the damage.
Almost all the "experts" interviewed on media seem to be in agreement
with this, as are written sources on how the MOAB works.

A secondary effect, although I am not sure about it, is that the size of
the explosion burns up all the available oxygen, supposedly killing
anything alive. Not sure I totally buy that but I am just a layman with
an opinion.

Until someone answers the question, how many were outside walking
around minding their sheep or farming and how many were actually
killed inside the caves we do not know exactly how effective it was.
If they actually collapsed caves, how did they get the body count and
how many came out the other side coughing dust?

When I read the MOAB stories it says that was for surface targets and
the MOP was for underground targets.
I suppose the problem is we have no clue what is underground. It
turned out all of those pictures of Bin Laden's suspected underground
compounds were simply Mechanix Illustrated style fantasy. Oh and he
was a whole country away anyhow.

MOAB story
 

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 19:05:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/16/2017 6:53 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:42:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/16/2017 4:45 PM, 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.



The vast majority of the NK population wouldn't know what the PC's were,
let alone know how to use them.

I guess you have not seen the stories about the people who are
spreading cheap PCs among 3d world people. The kids pick it up and
start using it right away with minimal training.

http://one.laptop.org/


In North Korea? Most places there don't even have electricity to
charge the batteries. Check out the night time satellite images.
South Korea is lit up like a Christmas tree, right up to the border
where it suddenly goes pitch black everywhere.


That machine can be charged a couple different ways including a hand
crank, solar or a various combination of electrical sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC_XO

It is really a pretty cool machine.For $200 you can get 2, one for you
and one for a kid in Fumbuck.

MOAB story
 

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 19:30:39 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The politicians (I cited Truman and LBJ)
didn't *allow* the military to win the wars although they well could have.

Not really. We would have ended up at war with the Soviets before we
took Hanoi and we were already at war with China when we high tailed
it back to the 38th parallel and called for a cease fire.


Bush 41 and Bush 43 are exceptions. The wars they got us involved in
were easily and quickly won. The political problems that remained is
what has caused all the problems.

HW won when he pushed Saddam back into Iraq. He should have picked up
his marbles and gone home right then.
Everything after that was just a series of bad decisions and battles
with no actual win available to them. GW certainly defeated Saddam's
army but they did not conquer the country and install a real
government like we did in 1945. All we did was unleash the crazies
that Saddam had been containing. I am not sure you can build a real
nation where none existed before.
I see the same thing happening in Syria and so does Putin.
He has already said, if we can come up with a plan that replaces Assad
with someone better they would get on board. Nobody wants another
Iran, Iraq or Libya.
It's is hard to find a case where we deposed a dictator in the last 50
years and it actually worked out well for the US.

MOAB story
 

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 19:39:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/16/2017 7:26 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:54:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


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.

Nobody ever said they treat small contractors fairly. Too bad you
weren't Raytheon but that still does not excuse the inefficiency of
the whole appropriation, development, deployment and scrapping
process.
How many times did they change the specs on you and expect you to eat
the cost? Did you?


I had many contracts with Raytheon's DoD division and with other major
DoD contractors. Also had a few contracts directly with the DoD.

No, I wasn't expected to "eat" a change in spec that affected our work
but there really were not that many of them. I did a pretty good job at
responding precisely to their RFQ's, because our proposal usually became
part of the contract. Any technical issues or requirements that might
be subject to "interpretation" were ironed out before the contract was
signed. I had learned the hard way in another company. The company
lawyer I had told me I would have made a good corporate contracts
lawyer. No thanks.

You were either very good or very lucky. I had lots of customers with
DoD contracts (My office was called "Washington Defense" until they
changed it to GEM Government, Education and Medical).
They were always complaining about trying to hit moving targets.

MOAB story
 

On 4/16/2017 10:49 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 19:39:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/16/2017 7:26 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:54:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


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.

Nobody ever said they treat small contractors fairly. Too bad you
weren't Raytheon but that still does not excuse the inefficiency of
the whole appropriation, development, deployment and scrapping
process.
How many times did they change the specs on you and expect you to eat
the cost? Did you?


I had many contracts with Raytheon's DoD division and with other major
DoD contractors. Also had a few contracts directly with the DoD.

No, I wasn't expected to "eat" a change in spec that affected our work
but there really were not that many of them. I did a pretty good job at
responding precisely to their RFQ's, because our proposal usually became
part of the contract. Any technical issues or requirements that might
be subject to "interpretation" were ironed out before the contract was
signed. I had learned the hard way in another company. The company
lawyer I had told me I would have made a good corporate contracts
lawyer. No thanks.

You were either very good or very lucky. I had lots of customers with
DoD contracts (My office was called "Washington Defense" until they
changed it to GEM Government, Education and Medical).
They were always complaining about trying to hit moving targets.



I learned to write very detailed technical proposals that not only
indicated acceptance of the RFQ stated requirements but also described
in detail *how* we would meet them. Usually that sort of detail wasn't
spelled out until the critical design review after you were under
contract. Putting that effort into the proposal avoided
"interpretation" disputes later.

I also earned a reputation for stating what RFQ requirements I felt we
could *not* meet and why. That approach won us a $750K contract when
the company was only 8 months old and nobody had ever heard of it. The
program manager called me after getting our proposal and told me they
didn't think the requirement could be met either and we were the only
respondent who took exception to it. Everyone else had simply accepted it.

I didn't take exception due to arrogance. I knew that accepting a
questionable contractual requirement could put me out of business. :-)