'Right time' to use huge bomb in Afghanistan - U.S. general

[rooster59]

'Right time' to use huge bomb in Afghanistan - U.S. general

By Ahmad Sultan and Hamid Shalizi

 

The GBU-43/B, also known as the Massive Ordnance Air Blast, detonates during a test at Elgin Air Force Base, Florida, U.S., November 21, 2003 in this handout photo provided April 13, 2017. REUTERS/U.S. Air Force photo/Handout via REUTERS

 

ACHIN, Afghanistan/KABUL (Reuters) - The top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan said on Friday that the decision to deploy one of the largest conventional bombs ever used in combat was purely tactical, and made as part of the campaign against Islamic State-linked fighters.

 

As many as 36 suspected Islamic State militants were killed in the strike on Thursday evening in the eastern province of Nangarhar, Afghan defence officials said, adding there were no civilian casualties.

 

Amaq, the news agency affiliated with Islamic State in the Middle East, carried a statement denying that the group had suffered casualties in the attack, citing an unidentified source who had been in contact.

 

The statements could not be independently verified, and on Friday Afghan and foreign troops in the vicinity were not allowing reporters or locals to approach the scene of the blast.

 

The strike came as U.S. President Donald Trump prepares to dispatch his first high-level delegation to Kabul, amid uncertainty about his plans for the nearly 9,000 American troops stationed in Afghanistan.

 

Nicknamed "the mother of all bombs," the weapon was dropped from an MC-130 aircraft in the Achin district of Nangarhar, bordering Pakistan.

 

Nicholson said he was in constant communication with officials in Washington, but the decision to use the 21,600-pound (9,797-kg) GBU-43 bomb was based on his assessment of military needs and not broader political considerations.

 

"This was the first time that we encountered an extensive obstacle to our progress," he said of a joint Afghan-U.S. operation that has been targeting Islamic State since March.

 

"It was the right time to use it tactically against the right target on the battlefield."

 

Afghan and U.S. forces were at the scene of the strike and reported that the "weapon achieved its intended purpose,", Nicholson said.

 

Afghan Defence Ministry spokesman Dawlat Waziri said no civilians were harmed in the massive blast that targeted a network of caves and tunnels that had been heavily mined.

 

"No civilian has been hurt and only the base, which Daesh used to launch attacks in other parts of the province, was destroyed," Waziri said in a statement.

 

He was using an Arabic term that refers to Islamic State, which has established a small stronghold in eastern Afghanistan and launched deadly attacks on the capital, Kabul.

 

The GBU-43 is a GPS-guided munition that had never before been used in combat since its first test in 2003, when it produced a mushroom cloud visible from 20 miles (32 km) away.

 

The bomb's destructive power, equivalent to 11 tonnes of TNT, pales in comparison with the relatively small atomic bombs dropped on Japan at the end of World War Two, which had blasts equivalent to between 15,000 and 20,000 tonnes of TNT.

 

MIXED REACTIONS

 

In Achin village, about 3 miles (5 km) from the remote, mountainous area where the bomb was dropped, witnesses said the ground shook, but homes and shops appeared unaffected.

 

Qari Mehrajuddin first saw "lightning like a thunder storm" followed by the roar of an explosion, an all-to-familiar sound for residents of the war-torn area.

 

"I thought there was a bombing just outside my home," he said. In reality, the blast was around three miles away, its massive impact bigger than any before seen in the region.

 

Some locals welcomed the strike.

 

"If you want to destroy and eliminate Daesh, then even if you destroy my home we won't complain, because they are not human beings, they are savages," said Mir Alam Shinwari, using an Arabic term for Islamic State.

 

Away from Achin, reactions were mixed.

 

"The fact is that America used their big bomb here to test its effectiveness," said Kabul resident Asadullah Khaksar. "If America wants to eliminate Daesh, it is very easy because they created this group."

 

Residents of Achin said they had got used to seeing militants climbing up and down the mountain, making occasional visits to the village.

 

"They were Arabs, Pakistanis, Chinese and local insurgents coming to buy from shops in the bazaar," said Raz Mohammad.

 

"TESTING GROUND"

 

On Friday, the village was swarming with Afghan and international troops, as helicopters and other aircraft flew overhead.

 

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani's office said in a statement the attack was a part of a joint operation by Afghan and international troops.

 

"Afghan and foreign troops closely coordinated this operation and were extra cautious to avoid any civilian casualties," it said.

 

But former president Hamid Karzai condemned the use of the weapon on Afghan soil.

 

The Taliban, the main security threat to Afghan and NATO forces trying to quell their stubborn insurgency, also denounced the bombing.

 

"Using this massive bomb cannot be justified and will leave a material and psychological impact on our people," the Taliban, who compete with Islamic State in Afghanistan, said in a statement.

 

American officials said the bomb had been positioned for possible use in Afghanistan for "some time" since the administration of former president Barack Obama.

 

The United States has steadily intensified its air campaign against Islamic State and Taliban militants in Afghanistan, with the Air Force deploying nearly 500 weapons in the first three months of 2017, up from 300 in the corresponding 2016 period.

 

Thursday's strike was not the first time Islamic State fighters have been targeted by heavy American bombardment in Nangarhar, where a U.S. special forces soldier was killed battling militants a week ago.

 

Last year, B-52 bombers operating out of Qatar flew at least two missions in Afghanistan for the first time since 2006.

 

Such aircraft can carry as much as 70,000 pounds (32,000 kg)of bombs, missiles, or other weapons on each mission.

 

In March, U.S. forces conducted 79 "counterterror strikes" against Islamic State in Nangarhar, killing as many as 200 militants, according to the U.S. military command in Kabul.

 

U.S. military officials estimate there are about 600 to 800 Islamic State fighters in Afghanistan, mostly in Nangarhar, but also in the neighbouring province of Kunar.

 

The United Nations has raised concerns that the American air campaign is swelling civilian casualties in Afghanistan.

 

Last year, air strikes by international forces caused at least 127 civilian deaths and 108 injuries, up from 103 deaths and 67 injuries in 2015, the United Nations said.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-04-15

 

[worgeordie]

I think they just wanted to use it,because they had it,so Afghanistan

was the test site,also sends a warning to N.Korea,but 16 M $ up in

smoke.

regards worgeordie

[SOUTHERNSTAR]

Before the bomb we had ISIS and after the bomb we still have ISIS, nothing changed. Obama dropped 26 172 bombs in 2016 alone (not bad for Nobile peace prize winner) and did that stop the rise of ISIS ?

[Grubster]

2 hours ago, SOUTHERNSTAR said:

Before the bomb we had ISIS and after the bomb we still have ISIS, nothing changed. Obama dropped 26 172 bombs in 2016 alone (not bad for Nobile peace prize winner) and did that stop the rise of ISIS ?

Yes I think it did as they are steadily falling now.

[elgordo38]

6 hours ago, rooster59 said:

The top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan said on Friday that the decision to deploy one of the largest conventional bombs ever used in combat

Whether its the above topic or Thailand its "generals, generals" everywhere. The odd time the term civilian government is sprinkled in to make things palatable to "spice" things up but its really a ruse as we all know who is running the show world wide. 

[williamgeorgeallen]

1 hour ago, Grubster said:

Yes I think it did as they are steadily falling now.

only because they are leaving ISIS to go start the next anti western movement. the west is wasting their time, at least someone is getting rich off producing and selling all these weapons of mass destruction.

[elgordo38]

7 minutes ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

only because they are leaving ISIS to go start the next anti western movement. the west is wasting their time, at least someone is getting rich off producing and selling all these weapons of mass destruction.

getting richer. 

[elgordo38]

5 hours ago, worgeordie said:

I think they just wanted to use it,because they had it,so Afghanistan

was the test site,also sends a warning to N.Korea,but 16 M $ up in

smoke.

regards worgeordie

Does that equal Trumps golfing trips so far??

[SOUTHERNSTAR]

2 hours ago, Grubster said:

Yes I think it did as they are steadily falling now.

Unfortunately they only move around and is steadily expanding into SEA, Africa and Europe. They have not been beaten in any country yet. In Iraq your army have been struggling for years to get rid of them and in Syria the west is so confused who they are fighting that they cant win the war.

[IAMHERE]

I believe it was time to drop that big bomb because it was quickly approaching its 'best used by' date. It was also time to drop it to see if it works as advertised and also so some bomb maker can make a profit by producing a replacement bomb this year.

I doubt that figure of 36 enemy dead is accurate, well perhaps viet cong accurate.

[boomerangutang]

video from an overhead satellite of the hit. . . . . . . . .  

 

npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/14/523902376/giant-bomb-was-right-weapon-for-attack-on-isis-u-s-general-says

 

                      Scroll down the page for the b&w footage lasting about 12 seconds.   It's the loudest silent film I've ever seen.

 

                 The death toll is creeping up, from an initial 34, to now near 100.  But how believable are reports?  If the Commander in Chief is a certified daily liar, then........

 

 

Edited April 15, 2017 by boomerangutang

[boomerangutang]

11 hours ago, worgeordie said:

I think they just wanted to use it,because they had it,so Afghanistan

was the test site,also sends a warning to N.Korea,but 16 M $ up in

smoke. regards worgeordie

More like $50 million.  And the bomb makers are probably gleefully making many more, as we speak.  

 

                  Note: war is not just bad for people, it's also bad for plants and animals in the vicinity.  We're just one species of millions.  Even when the US does test droppings of bombs, it decimates plants and animals.   But we're people, so we should only care about people, right?

 

[lungmi]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

More like $50 million.  And the bomb makers are probably gleefully making many more, as we speak.  

 

                  Note: war is not just bad for people, it's also bad for plants and animals in the vicinity.  We're just one species of millions.  Even when the US does test droppings of bombs, it decimates plants and animals.   But we're people, so we should only care about people, right?

 

Humans are the most inhuman of all animals.

[Srikcir]

12 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

More like $50 million.

According to the US Air Force, the cost is $170,000 per unit.

http://www.businessinsider.com/real-cost-of-moab-mother-of-all-bombs-170-000-2017-4

 

[boomerangutang]

27 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

According to the US Air Force, the cost is $170,000 per unit.

http://www.businessinsider.com/real-cost-of-moab-mother-of-all-bombs-170-000-2017-4

 

                      The $50 million I heard, from a newscaster online, may have been in reference to the 59 bombs Trump dropped on the air field in Syria.  Though it sounded like singular 'bomb' was mentioned.

 

                 Anyhow, the cost of the munitions is only part of the overall cost.   Each specialist involved with such things costs between $1 and 2 million to train, and then about another $1 to 2 million to take care of when he/she retires.  Costs for taking care of US military personnel, during and after their deployment, are astronomical.   

 

                     I had a friend in the US, who ran a back-hoe for the Army.  He told me of one day where he spent 6.5 hours digging a large ditch.  Because the job wouldn't get finished by the end of the work day, his boss told him to spend the remaining 1.5 hours filling it in (afraid a kid or dog would fall in, overnight).  The ditch was dutifully filled in - to grade.  Next day, he started over.  

 

                  Here's another story:   Military buy expensive harnesses and ropes for climbing cliffs and buildings.  That gear may get used once or twice during training sessions.   After 5 years, it's all considered out-dated, so it's all trashed.   Not given away, but literally destroyed, and new gear is bought.

 

                       Another story:  In Afghanistan, many units were built to house US servicemen and their gear.  They don't know how to build portable buildings, so when they leave a site, they destroy nearly everything.  They don't allow locals to re-cycle valuable plywood and appliances.  No, they use dozers to put it in a big burn/trash pile, and ten move to a new site to use all-new materials.  Air-conditioning costs also add mightily to expenses, requiring added power generators.

 

                  Those sorts of things are but a microcosm of the thousands of ways the military wastes money ....millions of dollars daily.   

 

 

Edited April 16, 2017 by boomerangutang

[Rob13]

11 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

and ten move to a new site to use all-new materials.

 

and guys are returning from these sites with health problems from breathing in the smoke of all the crap their burning over....means more payouts.

[Grubster]

21 hours ago, SOUTHERNSTAR said:

Unfortunately they only move around and is steadily expanding into SEA, Africa and Europe. They have not been beaten in any country yet. In Iraq your army have been struggling for years to get rid of them and in Syria the west is so confused who they are fighting that they cant win the war.

Well I guess you can never win a war against an enemy that hides amongst the people, you can only kill them where you find them, which is what we have been doing and will continue to do as long as they perform terrorist attacks. I can't see how it could ever end, unless they turn a new leaf.   The Muslim countries need to go after these people hard or they risk being persecuted eventually for not policing their own.

     As far as the war machine, it always has and always will flourish as long as humans do.

[ilostmypassword]

5 hours ago, Srikcir said:

According to the US Air Force, the cost is $170,000 per unit.

http://www.businessinsider.com/real-cost-of-moab-mother-of-all-bombs-170-000-2017-4

 

I followed that link. The problem with that computation is it takes no account of development costs which according to the New York Times was 300 million.  So you divide that by the 20 missiles that were actually manufactured and you're just about there.

[Thorgal]

I followed that link. The problem with that computation is it takes no account of development costs which according to the New York Times was 300 million.  So you divide that by the 20 missiles that were actually manufactured and you're just about there.

 Not to mention, cost to bring it to the air base, prepare with bomb experts, drop it, fuel transport aircraft, survey before and after, direct and indirect personnel, satellite folow up, etc...

 

And of course, like you've mentioned, the research cost. Also contracted and paid by the same end customer in a well developed PR campaign.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

[billd766]

44 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I followed that link. The problem with that computation is it takes no account of development costs which according to the New York Times was 300 million.  So you divide that by the 20 missiles that were actually manufactured and you're just about there.

 

The original Grand Slam bombs were developed by the British in 1943 and produced in 1944/45.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(bomb)

 

This was a variation of the British Grand Slam developed by the USA.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-12_Cloudmaker

[Srikcir]

48 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I followed that link. The problem with that computation is it takes no account of development costs which according to the New York Times was 300 million.  So you divide that by the 20 missiles that were actually manufactured and you're just about there.

If you amortize the research cost over the entire anticipated production, including any subsequent modifications, its per bomb cost diminishes. So in effect, the more MOABs used the cheaper they become. And of course there's the unmentioned savings for sparing the life of Allied servicemen either having to go into the tunnel complex and engaged in subsequent sneak attacks. This was a factor in the USA decision to drop two atomic bombs on Japan in WW2, albeit that was a strategic strike as opposed to the tactical strike of the MOAB in Afghanistan.

[ilostmypassword]

16 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

If you amortize the research cost over the entire anticipated production, including any subsequent modifications, its per bomb cost diminishes. So in effect, the more MOABs used the cheaper they become. And of course there's the unmentioned savings for sparing the life of Allied servicemen either having to go into the tunnel complex and engaged in subsequent sneak attacks. This was a factor in the USA decision to drop two atomic bombs on Japan in WW2, albeit that was a strategic strike as opposed to the tactical strike of the MOAB in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, there's very little use for these bombs. They won't be used in areas with civilians because of their massively destructive nature. They can't be used where the enemy has anti-aircraft capabilities since the bomb can only be carried by a cargo plane.  That's why they haven't been used in combat until now. This was the perfect tactical situation.  

[boomerangutang]

Not sure whether this has been mentioned yet, but the main way this bomb does its thing is:

 

1. blast

2. burns all the oxygen.  Many, if not most deaths are from asphyxiation. That's why it's considered effective for hard-to-reach areas like caves and shelters.

3. burning.

 

                     A precurser to MOAB was a bomb which descended slowly.  It was filled with fuel, possibly plain gasoline.  As it descended by parachute, it had two or more nozzles on its side, facing sideways, which caused the bomb to rotate.  As it did, it shot out a gas mist as far as possible.  When expended, the gas cloud was sparked, and KABOOOM!   all oxygen gone for minutes, along with a giant fireball.  It's so simple, that even a group of terrorists with a small budget could build one, though deploying it would be a challenge.   Use a dirigable?  

 

                I'm a analogue guy, so I prefer low-tech solutions.  The pentagon wouldn't want me in their planning sessions, because they want to use cutting edge digital costing billions, and I'd suggest simple tech, costing hundreds.   Terrorists also think more in analogue / old tech ways.  They brought down NYC's Twin towers with 50 cent cutter knives used to commandeer regular passenger jets.   If the Pentagon were assigned to bring down large buildings in a mega-city, it would cost tens of billions and probably wouldn't be as effective.

 

[Srikcir]

6 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

1. blast

2. burns all the oxygen.  Many, if not most deaths are from asphyxiation. That's why it's considered effective for hard-to-reach areas like caves and shelters.

3. burning.

The bomb was designed for a 6 feet air burst. As such its flash burn affect is largely limited to above ground.

 

MOAB's primary weapon vector is from overpressure that can penetrate deeply underground through tunnels, causing collapse and blunt force trauma to the human body (ie., broken bones, lung collapse, brain concussion, organ bruising and liquefication) in confined spaces (like a tunnel complex). Bodily damage begins at about 5psi and at 55 to 65 psi may cause 99% fatalities.     https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docket/archive/pdfs/niosh-125/125-explosionsandrefugechambers.pdf

 

I couldn't find any spec on the MOAB psi but it replaced the Blu-82 developed for the Vietnam conflict and upgraded for use in Afghanistan. The Blu-82 produced an overpressure of 1,000 psi near ground zero. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-82

 

The MOAB would not be effective against underground reinforced concrete and anti-blast doors as one might find with North Korea's underground nuclear weapons facilities. That's where the non-nuclear GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator might be useful.

[boomerangutang]

On cigg packs, they show diseased lungs and missing gums.

 

On bomb casings, they should show the damage done - and broadcast those photos ww.

 

Furthermore, all gun purchases should have such packaging also.

 

In the US, there are more warnings on a mattress or a bread toaster than on guns or bombs.

A ladder making biz which makes a 2 foot high item, essentially a footstool, can get in more legal trouble (if it doesn't have glaring warnings posted on it) than the maker of automatic weapons with hollow-point bullets designed to blow a liter of guts out a person's skull.

[ilostmypassword]

19 hours ago, Srikcir said:

If you amortize the research cost over the entire anticipated production, including any subsequent modifications, its per bomb cost diminishes. So in effect, the more MOABs used the cheaper they become. And of course there's the unmentioned savings for sparing the life of Allied servicemen either having to go into the tunnel complex and engaged in subsequent sneak attacks. This was a factor in the USA decision to drop two atomic bombs on Japan in WW2, albeit that was a strategic strike as opposed to the tactical strike of the MOAB in Afghanistan.

 

19 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Unfortunately, there's very little use for these bombs. They won't be used in areas with civilians because of their massively destructive nature. They can't be used where the enemy has anti-aircraft capabilities since the bomb can only be carried by a cargo plane.  That's why they haven't been used in combat until now. This was the perfect tactical situation.  

Another thought on the amortization question. There are very few situations that call for the use of these bombs. Also, presumably, they must have a shelf life. So it may well be that this one attack will end up having cost in excess of 300 million dollars.

[funandsuninbangkok]

Alla Akba....,,

[boomerangutang]

                 The US isn't the only country which can make and deliver MOAB-like bombs.

 

                            It reminds me of an incident which happened 20 yrs ago in California.  I was leaving a 4th of July fireworks display, about 10 pm.  My wife and 2 little boys were all in the front seat with me.   Right in front of my truck, a drunk redneck (a future Trump voter) was trying to pick fights with any guy who walked within striking distance.  He was strong, so after a few punches to others, passers-by knew to give him a wide berth.  Yet one smaller guy got in the mood, and stepped up and took a swing.  The sucker punch hit the big guy, but it only made him grin - 'cause now he had someone to beat to a pulp.    When the smaller guy tried to get away, the drunk redneck wouldn't let him, and kept pounding on him.   In other words, the smaller guy just wanted to take one good swing, and then split.  

 

                          The smaller guy is like Trump's mentality.   Trump thinks the US military can just step into the ring, take one good punch (with a Moab or 59 Tomahawks, or....), and then walk away.   Life isn't like that.  Bomb dropping has repercussions.  The conflict isn't over once the bomb is dropped.  

 

                       Get ready for worse things to happen to westerners, particularly Americans.   Note:  Americans traveling in the M.East (tourists , family members, businesspeople, students, researchers or whatever) are particularly vulnerable.   They don't have multi-levels of protection like military men have.