Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Greiger]

Admittedly the MOAB was probably more effective at collapsing deeper caves than a ton of smaller bombs would have.  Though I'm sure the (pointless)escalation and show of power was part of the reasoning to use it. And yes I do believe this is the first combat use of the bomb.  Otherwise it was just tested a couple times in my home state at Eglin.

It was brought to the Iraq war and readied for deployment but was not used if I understand correctly.  Probably because the war was officially over practically overnight.

[Lord Shonus]

Prior to today, the MOAB was never dropped in combat. It was dropped in a test once.

[EnigmaticHat]

I don't doubt this was a political decision, especially considering how recently the cruise missile strike happened.

My read on Trump is that he legitimately wants to complete his campaign promises, and he's going about it checklist style.  My guess is that he would consider draining the swamp and deporting immigrants to be a green check mark, and repeal + replace to be a red x mark.  "Bomb the shit out of ISIS" is next on his list I guess.

[Erkki]

Oh, certainly. But this really is the next worst thing to tactical nuclear weapons, or WMDs in general, I suppose.

You're exaggerating. Yeah, it was 11 tons worth of TNT, but thats still peanuts compared to nukes. A B1 can carry two MOABs or if not, 2 MOAB's worth in smaller bombs. Even an F16 can carry about 2/3 MOAB's worth of bombs.

[Greiger]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_gk49n5djw

That's the test drop of the bomb for those interested.

[EnigmaticHat]

A comparison.

The MOAB has far less theoretical power than the Hiroshima bomb, but the same blast radius.  Nukes have gotten deadlier since Hiroshima, but since those haven't been dropped on cities yet that's mostly an academic point.  Everyone's idea of a nuke is based on Hiroshima, not the horrors that modern weapon could inflict.

Nukes are cited as having huge explosive payloads but most of that payload is wasted on heat and light and radiation.  If we upgraded the MOAB to have the same power as a nuke, it would be a truly apocalyptic explosion.  This is because its delivery method is much more efficient.  The flip side of this is that the MOAB doesn't have nuclear fall out, so it is very much less deadly than any modern nuke.

So, I dunno.  It does seem kinda similar to a nuke honestly.  Imagine if we had 9k MOABs, that would still be enough to wipe out every city in a given nation.  Even if they are 100x weaker than a true nuke, they have the advantage that they AREN'T nukes, so they get past the treaties.  That's the scary bit for me.

[Erkki]

Well, it was easier(or at least cheaper) to level a city with bombs and phosphorous, than with a nuke, in ww2...

[Antioch]

Well, it was easier(or at least cheaper) to level a city with bombs and phosphorous, than with a nuke, in ww2...

Only because you can write off the entire cost of the Manhattan project on only 3 bombs in WW2. Nukes themselves are really cheap.

[Amperzand]

Well... No. Nukes are highly expensive. Not necessarily as expensive as the sheer quantity of aircraft and conventional explosive needed to destroy a building by bombing, but plutonium and fusion medium don't come cheap.

[martinuzz]

Overhead is the most expensive I'd think. For every nuclear weapon facility, you need an extra army division to protect it, be it from military assault, from falling into the wrong hands, from sabotage or from local politicians.

[misko27]

Nukes themselves are really cheap.

How would you measure this? Maintenence? Opportunity cost? Market value?

Let's hope no one gets nervous enough to try a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the US.

I strongly doubt that this is the case. There are five legal nuclear powers. Three (America, UK, and France) can be ignored. That leaves us with two: China, and Russia. Based on news reports, China is actually surprisingly happy with Trump thus far, showing himself as a man they can deal with. They talk in terms of money, which Trump understands. I'd be more concerned he tries to sell out the Koreans or something, honestly. The Chinese are adept at soft power, and have shown themselves to be reasonable, if increasingly assertive in their backyard and across the globe. China and Trump will not get into a nuclear standoff unless North Korea falls. Russia is interesting because no one knows what's going on between DC and Moscow. From a practical POV, however, Putin likes deniability. Nuclear exchange is not deniable. And given NATO on the Russian border, surely he's mindful of the risks of direct military confrontation.

There are also the illegal nuclear powers. India seems unlikely to do so out of the blue. Pakistan seems unlikely for similar reasons, as well as the fact that if they use a nuclear weapon, India is likely to respond (same goes if India uses it). Either way, Pakistan is not actually able to launch a strike against the US, because it's range is limited. Wikipedia states that their limit is 2750 km, which isn't enough to hit Hanoi, let alone Los Angeles. There's Israel, but... it's Israel. Israel is not going to nuke its patron. Either way, Israel needs to conserve its nuclear weapons to maintain the ability to use the Samson Option, which would become a very pressing issue if they attacked the US. Finally, there is North Korea. North Korea is probably not able to launch a nuclear strike against the US at this time (certainly not reliably), and has closer targets anyway.

Given the US operates ABMs, I'm not immediately concerned. It's everyone else who should be concerned.

[Lord Shonus]

Nukes themselves are really cheap.

How would you measure this? Maintenence? Opportunity cost? Market value?

The cost of a nuclear weapon is very complicated to measure. While the reactor needed to transmute the uranium into plutonium is rather expensive, such reactors are usually also used for power generation, which can largely offset the cost of the reactor. This makes the fissionable byproduct "free" from a certain point of view, and the actual work of building the warhead isn't much worse than building any other precision-manufactured device.

More importantly, nuclear warheads have such immense destructive power, and such immense diplomatic effect, that they're cheap at any price. Possessing even one makes a country a Power, and renders them almost immune to direct attack.

[Hanslanda]

Does Russia have ABM capability on par with the USA?

[Bumber]

Nukes can also have an EMP effect when detonated in the atmosphere, which is devastating to enemy communications and electronics for miles.

Can't get that with conventional bombs.

[Max™]

Let's hope no one gets nervous enough to try a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the US.

No one will ever be that nervous, it is literally triggering the end of the world because of nervousness, you only pre-nuke when you can take out the target without retaliation, we spent the Cold War making sure that could never happen.