On 4/15/2017 1:12 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 12:27:27 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/15/17 11:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Well, if that's the case, we have 14 more of those MOAB's in inventory.



And after we use them up, we'll still be leaving Afghanistan without a
resolution.

Don't worry, I imagine the appropriation to build more is already
bouncing around DC. I think they should ditch the guidance package,
ditch the high tech bomb case and just fill old gas station fuel tanks
with ammonium nitrate. They could make those for less than the price
of a new F150 and get a bigger bang.
Precision guidance on a bomb with a 1 mile blast radius is like
putting a 20 power scope on a blunderbus


Your idea of a bomb has one major problem in being unguided and possibly
along other design issues. It's use would likely be in violation of
international law. Or maybe you are saying we should do the same thing
that people like Assad and others do?

On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 13:51:30 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Come on Greg. A WWII vintage 5-inch shell or ammo for a .45 isn't the
same as a $15M bomb (not counting development costs) that undergoes
regular updating for improvements. We only built 15 of them. They
aren't "throwaways". Geeze.

Since when has DoD cared about the cost of things they throw away?
If it really has TNT in it, it certainly has a ticking clock. (I still
bet it is a mix of RDX and ammonium nitrate)
There are strict rules about classes of ordinance and what is service
ready, training or trash, based on the age. They know nothing lasts
forever. There are certainly expiration dates on ordinance.
The guidance package may actually expire before the bomb, just because
of capacitor degradation. My 20 year old PCs are becoming few and far
between because of that fact alone. I do not have a single socket 7
board that still works.

As for wars and killing of people, it's been going on since we emerged
from caves. What makes you think it's going to stop in your lifetime?
It sure would be nice but it just isn't realistic.


I understand that but every little regional grievance should not
require a US response. Why are we in Afghanistan? The terrorists are
in Pakistan.
I do notice the speed of our response seems to be inversely
proportional to the amount of melanin in their skin.
A dead little white (looking) girl will create a demand for action but
thousands of dead black kids in Africa (or the US) is just the "rub of
the green".
That seems to span both political parties and the liberal/conservative
divide.

On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 14:02:32 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/15/2017 1:12 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 12:27:27 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/15/17 11:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Well, if that's the case, we have 14 more of those MOAB's in inventory.



And after we use them up, we'll still be leaving Afghanistan without a
resolution.

Don't worry, I imagine the appropriation to build more is already
bouncing around DC. I think they should ditch the guidance package,
ditch the high tech bomb case and just fill old gas station fuel tanks
with ammonium nitrate. They could make those for less than the price
of a new F150 and get a bigger bang.
Precision guidance on a bomb with a 1 mile blast radius is like
putting a 20 power scope on a blunderbus


Your idea of a bomb has one major problem in being unguided and possibly
along other design issues. It's use would likely be in violation of
international law. Or maybe you are saying we should do the same thing
that people like Assad and others do?


Huh? there is nothing about the size of a conventional explosive in
the Hague conventions.
I am also not sure where the Assad connection is other than any bomb
is fairly indiscriminate and a bomb with a 1 mile blast radius more so
that others.
Why is "guided" so important with a bomb like that which is dropped
from low altitude and makes such a big hole? Guided is important with
little bombs. Big bombs, not so much. It is like when Tibbets was so
concerned with hitting one particular bridge when the whole city was
going to be in the fire ball.

On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 08:21:15 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/15/17 7:40 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/15/2017 1:20 AM, wrote:
The Snooze Press (Ft Myers paper) had an interesting article about
this bomb. It was developed at Eglin AFB in the pan handle and they
were talking to a guy there.
It turns out this is the most expensive barrel bomb I have ever heard
of. These are 16 million a pop. I am not quite sure why you need
precision guidance on a bomb with a 1 mile blast radius but it has it.
I am still not sure why it is so expensive but it is a DoD project.
The guy was saying he really expected these things to be "demilled"
(scrapped) probably because they were approaching their expiration
date. I suppose it was "use it or lose it" for the air force.
I am still not sure how effective it actually was but since it is
really a "shock and awe" weapon, I suppose we shocked someone using
it.
In typical fashion, the russians just packed a bigger tank with
explosive and have a bigger one but I am not sure if it is guided and
I know it was a lot cheaper.



If you believe the Pentagon, it was the perfect weapon for the intended
purpose. Apparently several attempts by Afghan forces (with American
special force advisers) had been made with boots on the ground to clear
the caves and tunnels of ISIS without success. They just ran through
the tunnels into Pakistan. The MOAB took care of that problem.




I read where the bomb killed a couple of dozen people. Big ****ing Deal.
At some point, we'll just pull out of Afghanistan and stop wasting
American lives and American money. Your not-so-almighty military isn't
going to solve it.

Thanks, Krause, I'd predicted the liberals would whine about the cost. Took you a couple days, but
you didn't let me down.

On 4/15/2017 2:18 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 13:51:30 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Come on Greg. A WWII vintage 5-inch shell or ammo for a .45 isn't the
same as a $15M bomb (not counting development costs) that undergoes
regular updating for improvements. We only built 15 of them. They
aren't "throwaways". Geeze.

Since when has DoD cared about the cost of things they throw away?
If it really has TNT in it, it certainly has a ticking clock. (I still
bet it is a mix of RDX and ammonium nitrate)


I don't know and you don't know. You are "betting".



There are strict rules about classes of ordinance and what is service
ready, training or trash, based on the age. They know nothing lasts
forever. There are certainly expiration dates on ordinance.
The guidance package may actually expire before the bomb, just because
of capacitor degradation. My 20 year old PCs are becoming few and far
between because of that fact alone. I do not have a single socket 7
board that still works.


Heh. You're comparing your 20 year old PC with a mil-spec guidance
system that is subject to regular upgrades?

Maybe you have forgotten some of your USCG days Greg. The military
doesn't just store away equipment in a storage shed for 20 years in
case they may need it someday. Each branch of the services has a
"Planned Maintenance Program" for virtually *everything* they use or
have in inventory. Regular tests are done, some weekly, some monthly,
some annually depending on what the equipment is and there are specific
requirements the equipment must meet. If they don't they are repaired,
if the repair is not economically feasible there is a complex procedure
for retiring it and taking it off the books.

The Planned Maintenance Program also deals with scheduled upgrades and
improvements as they become available.






As for wars and killing of people, it's been going on since we emerged
from caves. What makes you think it's going to stop in your lifetime?
It sure would be nice but it just isn't realistic.


I understand that but every little regional grievance should not
require a US response. Why are we in Afghanistan? The terrorists are
in Pakistan.
I do notice the speed of our response seems to be inversely
proportional to the amount of melanin in their skin.
A dead little white (looking) girl will create a demand for action but
thousands of dead black kids in Africa (or the US) is just the "rub of
the green".
That seems to span both political parties and the liberal/conservative
divide.

On 4/15/2017 1:53 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/15/17 1:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/15/2017 12:30 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/15/17 11:27 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/15/2017 10:36 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 07:40:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/15/2017 1:20 AM, wrote:
The Snooze Press (Ft Myers paper) had an interesting article about
this bomb. It was developed at Eglin AFB in the pan handle and they
were talking to a guy there.
It turns out this is the most expensive barrel bomb I have ever
heard
of. These are 16 million a pop. I am not quite sure why you need
precision guidance on a bomb with a 1 mile blast radius but it has
it.
I am still not sure why it is so expensive but it is a DoD project.
The guy was saying he really expected these things to be "demilled"
(scrapped) probably because they were approaching their expiration
date. I suppose it was "use it or lose it" for the air force.
I am still not sure how effective it actually was but since it is
really a "shock and awe" weapon, I suppose we shocked someone using
it.
In typical fashion, the russians just packed a bigger tank with
explosive and have a bigger one but I am not sure if it is guided
and
I know it was a lot cheaper.



If you believe the Pentagon, it was the perfect weapon for the
intended
purpose. Apparently several attempts by Afghan forces (with American
special force advisers) had been made with boots on the ground to
clear
the caves and tunnels of ISIS without success. They just ran through
the tunnels into Pakistan. The MOAB took care of that problem.


I don't believe the pentagon on much, particularly on untested
weapons. When I see things like this I am reminded of the navy/marines
in the Pacific in WWII. They would lob thousands of 16" shells onto
islands to kill the nips in the caves, then go ashore and find out,
they might be shaken up but they were still alive and shooting.
Our ability to root people out of tunnels and caves has always been
spotty and we always seem to come up with a new idea that doesn't
really work as well as we hoped.
I still think we used that one because it was coming up on it's
expiration date and they knew Trump liked the idea of "biggest"
anything.
I am still waiting for a real BDA


You, nor I, have any idea of what the "expiration date" is on those
bombs, so that's a pretty silly conclusion.

It's not "untested". It was designed and tested for a specific
purpose.
Until now, there wasn't an appropriate target for it.

You and Harry are the most cynical people I know when it comes to
things like this ... or anything new. I have far more
faith in what experts in the defense department think we need as
options. Maybe it's because I worked with them often over the years.
They are not all job protecting, resource spending bureaucrats that
some
people automatically assume they are. In fact, they were more
interested in reducing costs, reducing unnecessary complexity and
making
program objectives more efficient. Even the "mil-spec" requirements
for
most of the electronics were dropped in favor of qualified, commercial
grade components.


Perhaps I get my cynicism about the military from Dwight D. Eisenhower:

"Every gun that is fired, every warship launched, every rocket fired,
signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not
fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not
spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the
genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

The only way to make your dreams come true is to forever ban conflicts
and wars and expect everyone on the planet to honor it. How realistic
is that? I think Eisenhower had that in mind when he generated your
quote. It sure would be nice ... but....




Despite the trillions we have spent and the thousands of American
soldier lives we have sacrificed, we seem incapable of winning
"unconventional" wars against determined ideological enemies. We have to
find other, better ways of dealing with extremists. I don't think we
expend enough effort in that direction. Yet another aircraft carrier or
another supersonic fighter jet isn't going to make a difference.


You won't like this, but I believe it. We haven't fought a "war" since
WWII that politics didn't over-ride military objectives.

On 4/15/17 2:42 PM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 08:21:15 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/15/17 7:40 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/15/2017 1:20 AM, wrote:
The Snooze Press (Ft Myers paper) had an interesting article about
this bomb. It was developed at Eglin AFB in the pan handle and they
were talking to a guy there.
It turns out this is the most expensive barrel bomb I have ever heard
of. These are 16 million a pop. I am not quite sure why you need
precision guidance on a bomb with a 1 mile blast radius but it has it.
I am still not sure why it is so expensive but it is a DoD project.
The guy was saying he really expected these things to be "demilled"
(scrapped) probably because they were approaching their expiration
date. I suppose it was "use it or lose it" for the air force.
I am still not sure how effective it actually was but since it is
really a "shock and awe" weapon, I suppose we shocked someone using
it.
In typical fashion, the russians just packed a bigger tank with
explosive and have a bigger one but I am not sure if it is guided and
I know it was a lot cheaper.



If you believe the Pentagon, it was the perfect weapon for the intended
purpose. Apparently several attempts by Afghan forces (with American
special force advisers) had been made with boots on the ground to clear
the caves and tunnels of ISIS without success. They just ran through
the tunnels into Pakistan. The MOAB took care of that problem.




I read where the bomb killed a couple of dozen people. Big ****ing Deal.
At some point, we'll just pull out of Afghanistan and stop wasting
American lives and American money. Your not-so-almighty military isn't
going to solve it.

Thanks, Krause, I'd predicted the liberals would whine about the cost. Took you a couple days, but
you didn't let me down.



Indeed, Afghanistan isn't worth the price of another American soldier's
life...unless, of course, it would be your life.
As for the dollars we are wasting there, there is better use for them at
home, rebuilding this crumbling country.

On 4/15/2017 2:24 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 14:02:32 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/15/2017 1:12 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 12:27:27 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/15/17 11:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Well, if that's the case, we have 14 more of those MOAB's in inventory.



And after we use them up, we'll still be leaving Afghanistan without a
resolution.

Don't worry, I imagine the appropriation to build more is already
bouncing around DC. I think they should ditch the guidance package,
ditch the high tech bomb case and just fill old gas station fuel tanks
with ammonium nitrate. They could make those for less than the price
of a new F150 and get a bigger bang.
Precision guidance on a bomb with a 1 mile blast radius is like
putting a 20 power scope on a blunderbus


Your idea of a bomb has one major problem in being unguided and possibly
along other design issues. It's use would likely be in violation of
international law. Or maybe you are saying we should do the same thing
that people like Assad and others do?


Huh? there is nothing about the size of a conventional explosive in
the Hague conventions.
I am also not sure where the Assad connection is other than any bomb
is fairly indiscriminate and a bomb with a 1 mile blast radius more so
that others.
Why is "guided" so important with a bomb like that which is dropped
from low altitude and makes such a big hole? Guided is important with
little bombs. Big bombs, not so much. It is like when Tibbets was so
concerned with hitting one particular bridge when the whole city was
going to be in the fire ball.



Much more recent than the Hague conventions Greg and much more complex.
Barrel bombs were addressed in the UN as recently as 2014, directly as a
result of the Syrian Civil War. In order to lawfully used, they must
have a direct military objective with ... and this is important ...
"proportional" potential of civilian death or injury. What is
proportional really isn't spelled out but the risk of collateral damage
using a barrel bomb is significantly higher than that of a precision
guided bomb. Use of a barrel bomb on civilian populated areas, even if
there are military objectives is banned and against international law.

There is more to using precision guided ordnance than just hitting the
target. Precision guided ordnance also reduces the risk of collateral
damage.

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/15/17 1:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/15/2017 12:30 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/15/17 11:27 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/15/2017 10:36 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 07:40:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/15/2017 1:20 AM, wrote:
The Snooze Press (Ft Myers paper) had an interesting article about
this bomb. It was developed at Eglin AFB in the pan handle and they
were talking to a guy there.
It turns out this is the most expensive barrel bomb I have ever heard
of. These are 16 million a pop. I am not quite sure why you need
precision guidance on a bomb with a 1 mile blast radius but it has
it.
I am still not sure why it is so expensive but it is a DoD project.
The guy was saying he really expected these things to be "demilled"
(scrapped) probably because they were approaching their expiration
date. I suppose it was "use it or lose it" for the air force.
I am still not sure how effective it actually was but since it is
really a "shock and awe" weapon, I suppose we shocked someone using
it.
In typical fashion, the russians just packed a bigger tank with
explosive and have a bigger one but I am not sure if it is guided and
I know it was a lot cheaper.



If you believe the Pentagon, it was the perfect weapon for the
intended
purpose. Apparently several attempts by Afghan forces (with American
special force advisers) had been made with boots on the ground to
clear
the caves and tunnels of ISIS without success. They just ran through
the tunnels into Pakistan. The MOAB took care of that problem.


I don't believe the pentagon on much, particularly on untested
weapons. When I see things like this I am reminded of the navy/marines
in the Pacific in WWII. They would lob thousands of 16" shells onto
islands to kill the nips in the caves, then go ashore and find out,
they might be shaken up but they were still alive and shooting.
Our ability to root people out of tunnels and caves has always been
spotty and we always seem to come up with a new idea that doesn't
really work as well as we hoped.
I still think we used that one because it was coming up on it's
expiration date and they knew Trump liked the idea of "biggest"
anything.
I am still waiting for a real BDA


You, nor I, have any idea of what the "expiration date" is on those
bombs, so that's a pretty silly conclusion.

It's not "untested". It was designed and tested for a specific purpose.
Until now, there wasn't an appropriate target for it.

You and Harry are the most cynical people I know when it comes to
things like this ... or anything new. I have far more
faith in what experts in the defense department think we need as
options. Maybe it's because I worked with them often over the years.
They are not all job protecting, resource spending bureaucrats that some
people automatically assume they are. In fact, they were more
interested in reducing costs, reducing unnecessary complexity and making
program objectives more efficient. Even the "mil-spec" requirements for
most of the electronics were dropped in favor of qualified, commercial
grade components.


Perhaps I get my cynicism about the military from Dwight D. Eisenhower:

"Every gun that is fired, every warship launched, every rocket fired,
signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not
fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not
spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the
genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

The only way to make your dreams come true is to forever ban conflicts
and wars and expect everyone on the planet to honor it. How realistic
is that? I think Eisenhower had that in mind when he generated your
quote. It sure would be nice ... but....




Despite the trillions we have spent and the thousands of American
soldier lives we have sacrificed, we seem incapable of winning
"unconventional" wars against determined ideological enemies. We have to
find other, better ways of dealing with extremists. I don't think we
expend enough effort in that direction. Yet another aircraft carrier or
another supersonic fighter jet isn't going to make a difference.


We could be a lot closer to winning, if it could be called that, if we had
functional rules of engagement.

On 4/15/17 3:29 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/15/17 1:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/15/2017 12:30 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/15/17 11:27 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/15/2017 10:36 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 07:40:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/15/2017 1:20 AM, wrote:
The Snooze Press (Ft Myers paper) had an interesting article about
this bomb. It was developed at Eglin AFB in the pan handle and they
were talking to a guy there.
It turns out this is the most expensive barrel bomb I have ever heard
of. These are 16 million a pop. I am not quite sure why you need
precision guidance on a bomb with a 1 mile blast radius but it has
it.
I am still not sure why it is so expensive but it is a DoD project.
The guy was saying he really expected these things to be "demilled"
(scrapped) probably because they were approaching their expiration
date. I suppose it was "use it or lose it" for the air force.
I am still not sure how effective it actually was but since it is
really a "shock and awe" weapon, I suppose we shocked someone using
it.
In typical fashion, the russians just packed a bigger tank with
explosive and have a bigger one but I am not sure if it is guided and
I know it was a lot cheaper.



If you believe the Pentagon, it was the perfect weapon for the
intended
purpose. Apparently several attempts by Afghan forces (with American
special force advisers) had been made with boots on the ground to
clear
the caves and tunnels of ISIS without success. They just ran through
the tunnels into Pakistan. The MOAB took care of that problem.


I don't believe the pentagon on much, particularly on untested
weapons. When I see things like this I am reminded of the navy/marines
in the Pacific in WWII. They would lob thousands of 16" shells onto
islands to kill the nips in the caves, then go ashore and find out,
they might be shaken up but they were still alive and shooting.
Our ability to root people out of tunnels and caves has always been
spotty and we always seem to come up with a new idea that doesn't
really work as well as we hoped.
I still think we used that one because it was coming up on it's
expiration date and they knew Trump liked the idea of "biggest"
anything.
I am still waiting for a real BDA


You, nor I, have any idea of what the "expiration date" is on those
bombs, so that's a pretty silly conclusion.

It's not "untested". It was designed and tested for a specific purpose.
Until now, there wasn't an appropriate target for it.

You and Harry are the most cynical people I know when it comes to
things like this ... or anything new. I have far more
faith in what experts in the defense department think we need as
options. Maybe it's because I worked with them often over the years.
They are not all job protecting, resource spending bureaucrats that some
people automatically assume they are. In fact, they were more
interested in reducing costs, reducing unnecessary complexity and making
program objectives more efficient. Even the "mil-spec" requirements for
most of the electronics were dropped in favor of qualified, commercial
grade components.


Perhaps I get my cynicism about the military from Dwight D. Eisenhower:

"Every gun that is fired, every warship launched, every rocket fired,
signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not
fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not
spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the
genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

The only way to make your dreams come true is to forever ban conflicts
and wars and expect everyone on the planet to honor it. How realistic
is that? I think Eisenhower had that in mind when he generated your
quote. It sure would be nice ... but....




Despite the trillions we have spent and the thousands of American
soldier lives we have sacrificed, we seem incapable of winning
"unconventional" wars against determined ideological enemies. We have to
find other, better ways of dealing with extremists. I don't think we
expend enough effort in that direction. Yet another aircraft carrier or
another supersonic fighter jet isn't going to make a difference.


We could be a lot closer to winning, if it could be called that, if we had
functional rules of engagement.



How so, Billy Boy? Napalm everything living? More Agent Orange? Nukes?