On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 17:04:50 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/17/2017 5:00 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 14:37:36 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:


Who 'posed' that? It may have been suggested that a small portion of the DoD budget was used for
humanitarian aid, but your statement above is false.

You are the one who says the war in Syria and Afghanistan is for
humanitarian purposes.

Actually I was referring mainly to our response to the use of chemical weapons. I will admit that
more clarity would have been preferable.



I was confused by your anecdotes of people buried up to the neck and
being stoned to death, rape and genital mutilation ... sorry.
Those things are not limited to the places where we find a reason to
go to war.


Yeah. Those things are perfectly acceptable in the modern world because
it's a "cultural" thing. Right.


It is not right and we would not tolerate it in the civilized world
but a huge part of the world is not civilized and bombing them will
not civilize them.
We would be better off trying to civilize the inner cities in the US
with that money.

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?

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.

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 15:24:41 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

4:35 PMPoco Deplorevole
- show quoted text -
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.

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

Germany had a giant MOP sorta thing that were dropped over London in hopes of paralyzing the tube system the idea was to not explode on impact but to bury deep then the timer might ignite even days later destroying trains, tracks, people...

In the 60s they actually found some un exploded ordnance in the subway systems there. Maybe into the 70s.

The Brits made a 22,000 lb penetrator to break the sub pens on the
French coast too. It was basically a gun barrel, stuffed with Torpex
and a sharp cone welded in the nose. It used a tail fuze with a time
delay around a quarter to half a second. They also had a rocket
assisted bomb that came in a bit faster.
They didn't really know how well they worked until after the war and
they got a look inside the pens.

7:54
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 15:24:41 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:
- show quoted text -
The Brits made a 22,000 lb penetrator to break the sub pens on the
French coast too. It was basically a gun barrel, stuffed with Torpex
and a sharp cone welded in the nose. It used a tail fuze with a time
delay around a quarter to half a second. They also had a rocket
assisted bomb that came in a bit faster.
They didn't really know how well they worked until after the war and
they got a look inside the pens.
.....

Yeah, I'd say they both had the same idea producing the same effect[s]

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 20:54:29 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 15:24:41 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

4:35 PMPoco Deplorevole
- show quoted text -
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.

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

Germany had a giant MOP sorta thing that were dropped over London in hopes of paralyzing the tube system the idea was to not explode on impact but to bury deep then the timer might ignite even days later destroying trains, tracks, people...

In the 60s they actually found some un exploded ordnance in the subway systems there. Maybe into the 70s.

The Brits made a 22,000 lb penetrator to break the sub pens on the
French coast too. It was basically a gun barrel, stuffed with Torpex
and a sharp cone welded in the nose. It used a tail fuze with a time
delay around a quarter to half a second. They also had a rocket
assisted bomb that came in a bit faster.
They didn't really know how well they worked until after the war and
they got a look inside the pens.

We did the same thing using our 8" artillery tubes.

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.