MOAB-U.S. Super Bomb

[Black Jack]

The largest conventional bomb in history was tested today.

Called MOAB (Massive-Ordnance-Airburst-Bomb) it weighs 21,000 pounds and packs the force of a small nuclear weapon. It was designed for the war in Iraq and to replace the smaller 15,000 lb Daisy Cutter.

They should be releasing the video of it soon. Give Saddam a view of what is to come of his sorry genocidal ass.

[old jong]

The U.S. are also working on a "mini nuclear bomb" for underground bunkers attacks.
here's the link. (in french...I know!) (http://www2.canoe.com/infos/lemonde/archives/2003/03/20030311-094335.html)

[red5angel]

for all the french speaking members of this forum old jong?

[Nevermind]

The bomb has been nicknamed Mother Of All Bombs. Gee, wonder who that was aimed at? If Saddam cared about his people, he would just step down. Its not worth it. But then again we are talking about a man who puts weapon facilities in residential areas so that the people become human shields. Sick.

[old jong]

Originally posted by red5angel
for all the french speaking members of this forum old jong?

I am french speaking and I manage in english. I think some of the members can understand french.
Anyway,this article must be floating around in english somewhere.

[David Jamieson]

so, do you guys see a dichotomy here?

hmmmmn.

cheers

[Laughing Cow]

Hmmm.


The MOAB is deployed on a pallet from a C-130 aircraft. It initially has a parachute, but as it deploys, the Inertial Navigation System and Global Positioning System take over. The bomb also has wings and grid fins for guidance.

I think that means the C-130 can carry 2 or 3 of those.

But than taking a C-130 for a bombing run while under enemy fire does not sound like good proposition.

Hmmm.

[yenhoi]

They strap artillery pieces in c-130's and fly them in combat, dropping bombs is much easier to do then fly low and gun things.

Look, the cow laughs.


hah.

:cool:

[Laughing Cow]

Yenhoi.

If you would care to check the specs of the different C-130 than you would see that the low-flying gun totting version CAN'T handle much cargo.
Different configurations for different purposes.
C-130 vs AC-130 ( and I don't even need to look that info up)
C-130 = Cargo plane model 130

But I guess I need to bow to your superior knowledge of armor.

Btw, can you tell me about the "Angel of Death".
Hint, it is a Helicopter.

[Chang Style Novice]

So, this is one of those bombs that's not going to kill the Iraqi people, 'cause they're our friends, right? It's going to go door to door asking if they support SH, and if the answer is yes, then blow up their house.

(shakes head sadly)

edit -

http://www.execulink.com/~wblank/moab.htm

some more on the name "Moab"

[Liokault]

Nevermind


If Saddam cared about his people, he would just step down. Its not worth it.

What you mean step down before the US kills thousands of them?

[Nevermind]

The Iraqi people are not the enemy, Saddam is. I strongly believe, and this is just my opinion, that if he got his hands on the technology, he would strike at us pre-emptively. He has said before during the Gulf War that our weakness is that we care about whatever loss of lives we endure during a war, but that Iraq is willing to sacrifice its people for the cause. I don't advocate war as a rule, but he concerns me deeply. Unfortunately, the hard cruel reality is that there will be civilian casualties. I just hope the allied forces do everything possible to minimize this. But you have to admit, the man is banking on civilian casualties so that he can appear to be the victim. Does it sound like he cares about his own people?

[joedoe]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=383006

[Chang Style Novice]

Nevermind - I agree completely. I am concerned that with a bomb that has such incredible destructive powers and is deliberately designed to effect such a huge amount of acreage, we are playing right into his hands with MOAB and "Shock and Awe."

[Brad]

So, this is one of those bombs that's not going to kill the Iraqi people, 'cause they're our friends, right? It's going to go door to door asking if they support SH, and if the answer is yes, then blow up their house.
I'd heard that one way they would use this bomb, is phychological warfare. drop one of these things near Sadam's troops and they'll give up. Hopefully they won't drop it in any cities :-(

[Laughing Cow]

Yenhoi.

Sorry, didn't have time to finish the post earlier.

The Plane you are talking about is the AC-130 (no cargo capability, AFAIK) as was used during the Gulf War.

It's role was to supply fire support to ground troops, if I remember correctly they were not long in use and were pulled out after taking too much damages and 1 loss.

Taking a slow prop-driven airplane to drop bombs while SAM's and enemy planes fly around it takes a LOT of guts. They are not designed to be part of a bombing attack.

The primary rols of the C-130 are
refuelling & transport missions. See Lin k below

Here is a story as related by a friend that experienced landing in a C-130 during extreme enemy fire:

"We came in as high as possible, over the air-strip the Pilot pivoted the plane on it's wing-tip and we dropped till we nearly hit the deck, where he righted the plane and landed it"

He reckons that landing was the scariest experience during the war.

Cheers.

P.S.: DON'T try so hard to proof everything I say wrong or proof how much better you are, you won't get either a prize nor respect for partaking in a "Big D@ck swinging" competition.

C-130 (http://www.leyden.com/gulfwar/c130.html)
AC-130H/U (http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/AC_130H_U_Gunship.html)

[Chang Style Novice]

Brad -

Thing is, if SH really does have chemical and biological weapons, there is absolutely no doubt that he's willing to use them. A bluff like what you describe will only provoke him. Besides, unlike the first gulf war, this is going to be an invasion of an enemies home turf, not an attempt to roust an occupying force. SH will keep his troops sitting in civilian population centers to use his people as human shields. That's why I find it unlikely that secret facilities for manufacturing are hidden out in the desert - if found, there'd be nothing to stop us from kerbooeying the hell out of 'em. He'll keep chemical andbiological factories in cities where we'll have second thoughts of using a MOAB or Daisy Cutter because the collateral damage will make us look like bad guys.

[OdderMensch]

I'd think this was a backward devlopment in bomb-technology. Last I heard we were trying to develop smaller (250lb) smarter bombs.

Still, nothing quite like haveing 10 tons of high explosives pinpoint droped on a troop fromation. Ouch.
By near, I think you mean directly above. ;)

[Black Jack]

Actually the MOAB is a pretty smart bugger unlike its little bro the BLU-82 a.k.a Daisy Cutter. Unlike the Daisy Cutter which was used twice in Afghanistan on Taliban bunkers and to clear helicopter landing zones in Vietnam the Halloween orange MOAB does not need a parachute but uses a state of the art GPS system and a aerodynamic body to hit a precise location like a smart bomb-albeit a 10 ton smart bomb.

Since it has these features it can be dropped a lot higher altitude than the old Daisy Cutter could be and may even use the C-17 instead of the C-130.

Change- Provoke him? To use WMD's that the peaceniks INSIST that he does not have? The animal has already gased how many of the Kurds in the past from which he never served justice for. There is also a little something called Gulf War Syndrome which some of our gents got the last time around.

Buried evidence by U.N. weapon inspectors show that he already has drones and cluster bomb technology to drop chemical agents...but wait a minute he does not have WMD's.

[Chang Style Novice]

Yes, I still think it is possible to provoke him. Right now, he still has something to lose and may hold back (the Kurd situation was different because they had no means of retaliation.) Make sure he has nothing to lose by letting lose whatever he's got (and I'm not saying he doesn't have 'em - I'm just saying it hasn't been proven he has) and he'll let 'em go for sure.

I'm not anti-war, per se. I'm anti-stupid war. And I honestly think we're going about this as stupidly as we can so far.

[Black Jack]

Chang- I did not mean to imply you were anti-war at all. Just stating on the comment in general.

Cheers

[Chang Style Novice]

Seemed worth clarifying anyway. My position on the situation evolves as the situation evolves, you know?

[Serpent]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
Seemed worth clarifying anyway. My position on the situation evolves as the situation evolves, you know?

And isn't it a shame that Dubya can't think like that.

[rogue]

MOAB = Martyrdom on a budget. One bomb more martyrs! Think of all the fuel savings we'll realize, it's downright Green. Hell we drop enough of these we'll save so much fuel we won't need Iraqi oil.

On the ground....
Now all those wishing to get their share of virgins in Valhalla can save time and effort. Just gather in one place, call in their coordinates and have the USAF deliver one Martyrdom Special in 30 minutes or less. Also ask about any specials we may be running.

Here's a good one. (http://english.pravda.ru/main/2003/03/06/44067.html) Maybe they'll be better than they were in Afghanistan or Chechnya.

[Mr Punch]

THIS WAR IS WRONG from its start to its inevitable atrocity of an ending.

I've been watching these arguments develop on this board and everywhere else for some time, I'm pretty clued up on history, economics and the news for all its BS. I'm not gonna present any new evidence for my opinion. It's all out there, and where you stop providing evidence is just as much a matter of opinion in a Western scientific paradigm, so I'm just not going to bother, cos it won't make much difference to any of you. And I believe sometimes war is necessary.

But basically, it boils down to this: THIS WAR IS WRONG.

The use of the MOAB for anything other than military targets would be an atrocity.

What's a military target in Iraq? Well, let's look at 'human shields' shall we...? Has anyone noticed how we are all starting to talk about human shields more than civilians. How about returning to the old expression 'women and children'. Even the expression human shields, with its horrific overtones, is still more dehumanizing than the words 'civilian women and children'.

But then that's another example of manipulative psychological war-jargon BS propagandizing designed specifically to pervert any kind of passive dissent, compassion or worse, pacifism, into seeming like a human weakness instead of a quality to be aspired to.

And yet I've seen on this board pro-this-war people accuse some writers of using over-emotive terms like god help us, 'women and children'. Let's not make any mistake about spades being spades here. But if it's still too much for you, how about we use the words 'general public', like the 85% of the UK general public who oppose the war without UN backing or the 57% of the US general public who have said they would vote for any as yet unnamed incumbent over George W.Bush. And yes, I'm being facetious in my use of figures, but these are as reliable as any of the so-called 'intelligence' supporting this war, in the vast body of evidence supporting the exact figures of WMDs that Hussein has (extreme sarcasm).


So let's cut the crap here. Of course there will be civilian deaths (or should that be collaterol damage). Women and children will have their skins blistered and burned off, and their flesh will melt as they scream with the dry-scorched agony of their igniting lungs. So what?

Too emotive? **** you! Too long? **** you all! Not enough smileys? **** you all you ****ing *****s :eek: :p :D :rolleyes: :mad: !

Not enough evidence? You know what my emotive response is here...!


This bomb is 21000 lbs. No way can all the military jargon in the world call this in any way 'smart'. The only legitimate target would be a column of Republican Guard in open formation, or one of their bunkers with however many women and children are in it. So don't bull**** us.

This bomb is called MOAB. Look at CSN's link and tell me that the US masterminds behind this little piece of propaganda did not know that this word is a ****ing Hebrew word meaning deliverance to holy peace. So don't bull**** us.

Not while the fields and forests of Vietnam are still unplantable, and the fourth generation of Vietnamese kids are still being born with defects. So where's the relationship with this war? Look at joedoe's link for a start, and tell me that you can't see any irony in the US using chemical weapons of any sort. And don't bull**** us.


This war is not because Hussein has been gassing Kurds. Many people have been committing atrocities recently... but somehow trade deals don't seem to stop.

It is not because he has WMDs: again, so do many countries, and yes, I think it is still relevant that the US, the UK, the Russians and the French (not just the French as that blatantly racist piece of **** thread would now have us believe) sell them freely with the training, technology and parts, lock stock and boy, there are your smoking ****ing barrels!

It is not because of links with al Qaeda. Again, look at our partners Saudi, our partners in Pakistan who are now conveniently finding terrorists for us everywhere, and our own ****ing brothers living in my home town in the UK... still doing business as usual.

It is certainly not because of a 12 year old UN resolution that everybody's been ignoring till the Pres and his barons want to remember it.

I don't know why President Bush wants this war, though I have some ideas, but I do know that the only reason this war will happen is because the US government wants it, and is capable of bullying its 'allies' into it. And that is WRONG.



The US government says international law is being sneered at and bucked by Iraq. So the US govt is prepared to buck international law to prove its point. Which is WRONG.

The US govt says international law is weak. So it will go ahead and prove it. Which is WRONG.

The US govt says chemical weapons are bad. And so it will go ahead and use them to prove it. Which is WRONG.

The US govt says attacking civilian targets is evil. So it will pass off women and children as human shields, regrettably expendible, and potential combatants (remember that jargon from the last Gulf War, resurrected after 911?). Which is BS.


So let's cut the crap. Don't bull**** us anymore.
The reasons for this war are in every way linked with trade, global recession (caused by an unworkable economic system the US has been following and encouraging other countries into and ignoring its own experts about for decades) and the backing of a bunch of Christian fundamentalists every bit as dangerous and scary as the Islamic ones.

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by rogue
MOAB = Martyrdom on a budget. One bomb more martyrs! Think of all the fuel savings we'll realize, it's downright Green. Hell we drop enough of these we'll save so much fuel we won't need Iraqi oil.


LMFAO at Rogue!:D :D :D

And it's so true it's not even funny! :rolleyes:

Onwards Christian Soldiers!

[rogue]

Women and children will have their skins blistered and burned off, and their flesh will melt as they scream with the dry-scorched agony of their igniting lungs. So what? On the other hand you could think of it as new avatars for GDA.:D

[Mr Punch]

Glad somebody liked that bit.

Not too heavy metal then?!

[rogue]

Nah, but then I've been playing Metallicas S&M and Dwight Yokaoms greatest hits all day, so I may be bit desensitized to things.

[Serpent]

Great post, Mat. Say what you mean! ;)

Rogue, Metallica and Dwight Yokam? You scare me a little more every day! ;)

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by Serpent
Great post, Mat. Say what you mean! ;)



OK, I will! Get your tongue out my ass you pinko liberal commie, before I let some chemical warfare of my own go!

Now stand up and tell me, do you support me in my war to rid the world of all Jews, Moslems and Christians?!

[Mr Punch]

OK OK, I'm part joking.

I wouldn't **** on your tongue.



But in all seriousness, if anybody out there believes in this war...

you're wrong.

[rogue]

Rogue, Metallica and Dwight Yokam? You scare me a little more every day! You don't know how scary it can get.:D

[Serpent]

Stand back everyone! He's gonna blow!

[Serpent]

Godd@mn fundamentalist idiot!

:p

[rogue]

Alright! It's time for a little Liberace and Danzig!

[Serpent]

Aha! Now you're talking!

:)

[rogue]

Sing along now (http://ebhon.jnst.uor.edu/~raveneye/geek/tunak_tunak.rm)

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by rogue
You don't know how scary it can get.:D

You wanna see my underpants.

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by Serpent
Stand back everyone! He's gonna blow!

You wanna see my underpants.

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by Serpent
Godd@mn fundamentalist idiot!

:p

Are you talking about God Himself?

[Serpent]

No.

Show us your pants.

[Mr Punch]

A man's underpants are his own private kingdom!

And you have a woman's underpants...! I'll wager your underpants have never been used to sail a barb-wire canoe down the white waters of the Amazon, followed by a thousand...

your turn...

I'm off to save the world.

[Serpent]

Well, that's where you're wrong!

(With thanks to the genius of Rowan Atkinson and Ben Elton for Blackadder! ;) )

[ZIM]

I say we switch to Punitive Food Aid attacks- anybody p1sses us off, we drop 30 tons of okra on them.

Anyone notice this? (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030311/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_suicide_volunteers) It reminds me a little of Korea, when the Chinese did the human wall thing. Ike wanted to use nukes on them... :(

[Chang Style Novice]

30 tons is a lot of okra. You'd need about 15 tons of cornmeal batter and considerably more hot oil to get that to work. Or maybe about 30 tons of tomato, and pepper to taste.

[ZIM]

30 tons is the only way to be sure- with all that slime, they ain't going anywhere fast... and indigestion will do the rest.

Look at it this way: folks will stop asking us for help.