American Politics

[kkck]

So Trump is saying nato is no longer obsolete. Did he finally read it's Wikipedia entry? Two good points about this:

1.- yet another step closer to a vague semblance of something somewhere in a not so near vecinity of sanity.

2.- the sound of his supporters squirming over this. Idiots thought trump was on their side looool.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

It hasn't been one year, and he's already stabbing his supporters' back and going against his own word. It's really not surprising to see this happening...

 

[Philia]

 

[kkck]

Damn, trump's change towards the most aggressive foreign policy in US history is happening fast. Not that there was any other possibility considering his campaign promises. Wonder what comes next....

 

[shionoro]

Damn, trump's change towards the most aggressive foreign policy in US history is happening fast. Not that there was any other possibility considering his campaign promises. Wonder what comes next....

The eventual change of course once the pressure becomes too big, as usual.

 

[Philia]

US dropped a MOAB in Afghanistan

This is madness. That bomb is almost as powerful as the nuke dropped in Hiroshima. Why was it necessary? I wonder how many civilian casualties occurred...no report on this so far..

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

And here's what's worse:


I'm already convinced enough that WikiLeaks are playing the partisan game, and this is coming from a guy who admires their actions for exposing the corruptions produced by our government. It's all just a "Whataboutism" wildcard being abused just to deflect from an actual issue.

 

[Philia]

And here's what's worse:

That's not wrong either......but I'm gonna ask what does bombing accomplish? You'll create more terrorists than you'll kill this way. Imagine how much money is spent on these. That MOAB alone cost 314Million USD. What will it accomplish other than a threat to Russia, Iran, Syria, China and North Korea? Is it a way to improve relation?

 

[kkck]

US dropped a MOAB in Afghanistan

This is madness. That bomb is almost as powerful as the nuke dropped in Hiroshima. Why was it necessary? I wonder how many civilian casualties occurred...no report on this so far..

Well, at the moment it does not seem like there were civilian casualties. No reports on that anywhere. It doesn't seem like the area they hit would have that may either (they aimed for a cave system). I guess that it's a 20 ton bomb but I do have to wonder how effective such a thing would be at destroying underground tunnels.

One thing that did catch my attention is a few reports that this had been planned for months. Trump did authorize it but if it was planned for months this was something that started either right at the start of the trump administration or it was something the government was already looking into during obama's time.

In any case, even if there were civilians here there probably wouldn't be that many. However it is worth noting that even the technically plausible few that could be here are but a scratch compared to increased civilian casualties on other fronts.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 14, 2017, Original Post Date: Apr 14, 2017 ---

And here's what's worse:


I'm already convinced enough that WikiLeaks are playing the partisan game, and this is coming from a guy who admires their actions for exposing the corruptions produced by our government. It's all just a "Whataboutism" wildcard being abused just to deflect from an actual issue.

Well, they clearly are playing a partisan game here. But that does not mean their leaks are inaccurate, the trick is figuring out what is what... Take the hillary leaks. Clearly they were meant to specifically favor trump but that does not mean they were any less real. It's the classic "attack those shady assholes with actual truths".

Another bit that is weird here and that wikileaks is fair to point to is that the US being willing to bomb stuff is by no means new. We already knew that was a thing however republicans and a decent bit of the media takes trump's actions and imply obama wasn't willing to bomb shit to hell. That's... asinine. Clearly obama was more reserved than trump for this sort of thing but I wouldn't put it past him to bomb the syria base for instance. The moab I wouldn't be so sure he would sign on considering it is literally the closest thing to a nuke they can shot.

I gotta wonder though, russians supposedly have their own moab. Will they perhaps be more willing to try it out now that the US has used theirs?

 

[Philia]

Well, at the moment it does not seem like there were civilian casualties. No reports on that anywhere. It doesn't seem like the area they hit would have that may either (they aimed for a cave system). I guess that it's a 20 ton bomb but I do have to wonder how effective such a thing would be at destroying underground tunnels.

One thing that did catch my attention is a few reports that this had been planned for months. Trump did authorize it but if it was planned for months this was something that started either right at the start of the trump administration or it was something the government was already looking into during obama's time.

In any case, even if there were civilians here there probably wouldn't be that many. However it is worth noting that even the technically plausible few that could be here are but a scratch compared to increased civilian casualties on other fronts.

That thing had a blast radius of 1 mile and can do significant damage up to a area of radius 5 miles.

How can there not be significant amount of civilian casualties?

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 14, 2017, Original Post Date: Apr 14, 2017 ---

Besides MOABs aren't the best thing for destroying tunnels. It has an insane blast yield but it can't penetrate much deep. There are other bombs which are less dangerous but more effective in taking down underground funnels and bunkers.

 

[kkck]

That thing had a blast radius of 1 mile and can do significant damage up to a area of radius 5 miles.

How can there not be significant amount of civilian casualties? MOAB is comparable to the Hiroshima bomb "little boy" which had a blast yield of 15kton. While the MOAB used had a blast yield of 11kton.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 14, 2017, Original Post Date: Apr 14, 2017 ---

Besides MOABs aren't the best thing for destroying tunnels. It has an insane blast yield but it can't penetrate much deep. There are other bombs which are less dangerous but more effective in taking down underground funnels and bunkers.

Well, regardless of the size the issue is where it was dropped. There are no reports anywhere regarding this and the trump administration has been less than transparent about this.... I guess we will find out a few days from now. Or when russia tells us...

That is an interesting bit. If the bomb is not effective at destroying tunnels even in spite of the blast radius then it is a strong case for trump doing this solely to show he is willing to use unnecessary force... Yay?

 

[Philia]

Well, regardless of the size the issue is where it was dropped. There are no reports anywhere regarding this and the trump administration has been less than transparent about this.... I guess we will find out a few days from now. Or when russia tells us...

That is an interesting bit. If the bomb is not effective at destroying tunnels even in spite of the blast radius then it is a strong case for trump doing this solely to show he is willing to use unnecessary force... Yay?

Most certainly. There are bombs which are specifically used to take out underground tunnels and bunkers. They could've used them. But they had to use something massive to send a message to Assad and Kim...

 

[z.5]

This is madness. That bomb is almost as powerful as the nuke dropped in Hiroshima. Why was it necessary? I wonder how many civilian casualties occurred...no report on this so far..

Slightly off topic, perhaps, but AFAIK the MOAB isn't anywhere near Little Boy - it's at least three orders of magnitude smaller in blast yield (it's nowhere near 11 kilotonnes - supposedly it's 0.011 KT).

I am not all that knowledgeable about the bunker busters (I didn't even think that the MOAB was a penetrator weapon) which the US army owns, but this action still did appear to be more about making a point than having any significant impact against Daesh. - if it was about destroying a particular tunnel system, and making a point about overwhelming power, wouldn't the MOP have been a better choice?

 

[Philia]

Slightly off topic, perhaps, but AFAIK the MOAB isn't anywhere near Little Boy - it's at least three orders of magnitude smaller in blast yield (it's nowhere near 11 kilotonnes - supposedly it's 0.011 KT).

I am not all that knowledgeable about the bunker busters (I didn't even think that the MOAB was a penetrator weapon) which the US army owns, but this action still did appear to be more about making a point than having any significant impact against Daesh. - if it was about destroying a particular tunnel system, and making a point about overwhelming power, wouldn't the MOP have been a better choice?

Yeah....I think I read an article which said MOAB had a blast yield of 11ktonnes. But checked Wikipedia and it says MOAB has a blast yield of 11tonnes not Ktonnes.


There are better ways to take out tunnels than MOABs. MOP and other bunker busters are better to take out tunnel systems. But it seems the main goal was not to take a stand against daesh but to send a message to Syria and NK. Thus the use of excess force. Afghanistan used as a weapon testing ground

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

That's not wrong either......but I'm gonna ask what does bombing accomplish? You'll create more terrorists than you'll kill this way. Imagine how much money is spent on these. That MOAB alone cost 314Million USD. What will it accomplish other than a threat to Russia, Iran, Syria, China and North Korea? Is it a way to improve relation?

Of course they're not wrong, but the problem that I have with this is that they're deflecting an issue (Yes, it's good to know a trivia that we've used more than 20k bombs, but what exactly does that have to do with using the MOAB? It's awful, but that shouldn't make it any worse than when the MOAB was used).

Well, they clearly are playing a partisan game here. But that does not mean their leaks are inaccurate, the trick is figuring out what is what... Take the hillary leaks. Clearly they were meant to specifically favor trump but that does not mean they were any less real. It's the classic "attack those shady assholes with actual truths".

I never said their leaks were inaccurate or wrong. My point is that they're painting an issue with some trivial fact that has happened last year. It's no better than using "But Hillary/Her Emails" card when people are defending the moron-in-chief.

 

[SharkBait]

Dont forget to vote on which agency you want to see reformed or eliminated.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/reorganizing-the-executive-branch

 

[kkck]

Wow, so many defense departments to choose from....

 

[xi0]

One thing that did catch my attention is a few reports that this had been planned for months. Trump did authorize it but if it was planned for months this was something that started either right at the start of the trump administration or it was something the government was already looking into during obama's time.

He most likely had nothing to do with it, from what I've seen. The weapon itself had been in Afghanistan for years now.

 

[kkck]

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 17, 2017, Original Post Date: Apr 14, 2017 ---

Honestly, I am somewhat confused at all the reporting about Trump suddenly not being isolationist. At the very least during the campaign to me it sounded like he wanted to make the US have it's most aggressive foreign policy in history on a number of fronts, not just on military issues. And of course when it came specifically to military issues he talked extensively about bombing ISIS and bringing back torture with a vengeance and god knows what else. We are going into week 2 of all this reporting but... WTH did people expect? I can understand a few days of reporting that trump is having a extremely aggressive foreign policy. But we are going into week 2 of this idiotic reporting on something which at worst was extremely likely and at best obvious.

 

[shionoro]

Of course Trump congratulated erdogan for winning the referendum.
Of course he did XD