surveyour   10 #1 Posted April 13, 2017 The US has dropped the "mother of all bombs" - the largest non-nuclear weapon ever used in combat by the US military - on an area of eastern Afghanistan known to be populated by Isis-affiliated militants.  The Pentagon said the strike was the first time the 21,000lb weapon had been used in combat operations.  Not sure how or why such a large weapon being used could be justified, can hardly be a targeted attack, civilian casualties would be inevitable.  Well, atleast we know there where really weapons of mass destruction, but they where not where we where looking or thought they where going to be. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #2 Posted April 13, 2017 Targetted at tunnel complexes apparently. In an area with no civilians. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Guest sibon   #3 Posted April 13, 2017 Targetted at tunnel complexes apparently. In an area with no civilians.  Indeed.  Anything that takes out IS and their cave network is justified IMO. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
surveyour   10 #4 Posted April 13, 2017 Could be wrong, but if it's a area where there's no civilians, somewhere remote or out of the way, why would they need to build tunnels to hide away? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Obelix   11 #5 Posted April 13, 2017 Because drones can shoot them on the surface..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
surveyour   10 #6 Posted April 13, 2017 So if North Korea said they where building a nuke to target IS, you would be okay with that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #7 Posted April 13, 2017 You realise that the US already have nukes, and plenty of other bombs, missiles and so on??? And it WAS used against IS.  "Not sure how or why such a large weapon being used could be justified, can hardly be a targeted attack, civilian casualties would be inevitable."  You've had your concerns answered as to how and why and the civilian casualty risk being low. So now you're going to change your objection to "So what if North Korea said"??? Did you want to be taken seriously at all? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
surveyour   10 #8 Posted April 13, 2017 Building a tunnel complex in a remote area seems OTT to avoid drones, can understand in a more densely populated area, where there's checkpoints etc. But if middle of nowhere, won't they just use camouflage? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
dangerousedd   10 #9 Posted April 13, 2017 well it has a 1 mile blast radius so id assume a few civis would have bought it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
top4718 Â Â 838 #10 Posted April 13, 2017 well it has a 1 mile blast radius so id assume a few civis would have bought it. Â Afghanistan is a fairly large country, maybe not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
illuminati   10 #11 Posted April 13, 2017 Building a tunnel complex in a remote area seems OTT to avoid drones, can understand in a more densely populated area, where there's checkpoints etc. But if middle of nowhere, won't they just use camouflage?  Because camouflage in the middle of nowhere stands out as like.... camouflage in the middle of nowhere! oooh look at that camouflage in the middle of an otherwise clear desert. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Grietje   10 #12 Posted April 14, 2017 Hiroshima was 15 kilotons, Nagasaki was 20 kilotons.  This one was 21 kilotons. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...