(April 14, 2017 at 10:02 am)Drich Wrote:

(April 14, 2017 at 7:50 am)Jehanne Wrote: It just does not make sense from a physics POV:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/14/asia/afgha...index.html

Besides, how does anyone really know?  Kind of seems like US propaganda here?  Besides, did anyone go into the militant tunnels to count the dead remains?

how do the "physics not make sense?"

Are you say the concept of a air dropped bomb is not possible? or are you say if one scales this bomb principle up to 21,000 tons the bomb does not work?

The physics does not make sense because a bomb converts energy (chemical or nuclear) from one form to another (electromagnetic or light or mechanical), which results in thermal energy (heat) and, especially, a mechanical wave (supersonic), which manifests itself as sound (and, especially, pressure).  And, so, a bomb creates a huge pressure gradient as it travels away from its explosion at first supersonic, and then, subsonic, speeds in all directions.  But, if something (say, a tunnel) is sufficiently far underground (say, 30 to 60 feet), then the pressure from the bomb (which is Force / Area) will only exert a small influence on the tunnel, which after all, is supporting a far greater force (namely, the weight of the earth above it, W = mass of that section of the Earth * g, the gravitational acceleration), which means that most of the force from the blast will be going laterally (which will obliterate any nearby buildings, persons, etc., due to overpressure) and vertically.  Any mechanical waves (via the atmosphere) will hit the ground and be reflected back upwards into the atmosphere.

And, so, if the tunnels that ISIS had were deep (say, as deep as what the Mexican drug cartels are building -- say, 30 to 60 feet deep), then they were completely unscathed by an above-ground explosion.

P.S. I should add that the news reports said that the bomb was a mid-air explosion that did not detonate upon impact with the ground.

The intent was to collapse the tunnels as far back as possible. We'll have to see if that worked.

(April 14, 2017 at 2:08 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: The intent was to collapse the tunnels as far back as possible. We'll have to see if that worked.

I don't think that it did; I think that the real intent of the military was to get some test data for their new weapon.

(April 14, 2017 at 2:10 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(April 14, 2017 at 2:08 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: The intent was to collapse the tunnels as far back as possible. We'll have to see if that worked.

I don't think that it did; I think that the real intent of the military was to get some test data for their new weapon.

MOABs aren't new.

(April 14, 2017 at 2:12 pm)Isis Wrote:

(April 14, 2017 at 2:10 pm)Jehanne Wrote: I don't think that it did; I think that the real intent of the military was to get some test data for their new weapon.

MOABs aren't new.

This particular weapon is new, the largest conventional (non-nuclear) weapon on the planet.  There are not many places in the World in which the US military can test it; what better place than testing it out on ISIS in a remote location in Afghanistan?  Another possibility is that The Donald wants to start "justifying" the use of low-level/yield nuclear weapons in the region, by claiming that the largest conventional weapons are not sufficient to do the job.

(April 14, 2017 at 2:10 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(April 14, 2017 at 2:08 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: The intent was to collapse the tunnels as far back as possible. We'll have to see if that worked.

I don't think that it did; I think that the real intent of the military was to get some test data for their new weapon.

I'll leave the mind-reading to those that can do it. However, I will point out that the MOABs in inventory were built during George W. Bush's misadminstration.

---

(April 14, 2017 at 2:20 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(April 14, 2017 at 2:12 pm)Isis Wrote: MOABs aren't new.

This particular weapon is new, the largest conventional (non-nuclear) weapon on the planet.  There are not many places in the World in which the US military can test it; what better place than testing it out on ISIS in a remote location in Afghanistan?  Another possibility is that The Donald wants to start "justifying" the use of low-level/yield nuclear weapons in the region, by claiming that the largest conventional weapons are not sufficient to do the job.

Where are you getting your information, please? I need go to there and slap them.

(April 14, 2017 at 1:12 pm)A Theist Wrote:

(April 14, 2017 at 10:58 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Often the point of a weapon is to break things, rather than kill people. If the latter happens, it's a plus.

The U.S. was targeting a tunnel complex that was being used by ISIS fighters. I would imagine that a better than 10 ton bomb that leaves a mile wide crater and shoots up a mushroom cloud that can be seen from twenty miles away would have busted up the tunnel complex pretty good. Too bad more ISIS fighters weren't at home when MOAB came knocking. Imagine what it could do in an open field combat situation.

Actually, the weapon's main threat is the blast wave, which doesn't come into effect nearly as well in the wide-open. Confined quarters -- like a tunnel complex, if you target (one of) its openings -- make a pretty good funnel for the shock wave. Not to mention the oxygen that the combustion uses up.

(April 14, 2017 at 2:29 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(April 14, 2017 at 2:10 pm)Jehanne Wrote: I don't think that it did; I think that the real intent of the military was to get some test data for their new weapon.

I'll leave the mind-reading to those that can do it. However, I will point out that the MOABs in inventory were built during George W. Bush's misadminstration.

---

(April 14, 2017 at 2:20 pm)Jehanne Wrote: This particular weapon is new, the largest conventional (non-nuclear) weapon on the planet.  There are not many places in the World in which the US military can test it; what better place than testing it out on ISIS in a remote location in Afghanistan?  Another possibility is that The Donald wants to start "justifying" the use of low-level/yield nuclear weapons in the region, by claiming that the largest conventional weapons are not sufficient to do the job.

Where are you getting your information, please? I need go to there and slap them.

I'm just speculating.  Also, every time a bomb gets used, another needs to be manufactured to replace it.  Business contacts, anyone?

(April 14, 2017 at 2:40 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(April 14, 2017 at 2:29 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: I'll leave the mind-reading to those that can do it. However, I will point out that the MOABs in inventory were built during George W. Bush's misadminstration.

---

Where are you getting your information, please? I need go to there and slap them.

I'm just speculating.  Also, every time a bomb gets used, another needs to be manufactured to replace it.  Business contacts, anyone?

We've used ONE of the MOAB's build in '03/'04. No demand for more right now. 

There isn't always skullduggery at work. 

Except on the Internet, where it's the only explanation.

(April 14, 2017 at 2:36 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(April 14, 2017 at 1:12 pm)A Theist Wrote: The U.S. was targeting a tunnel complex that was being used by ISIS fighters. I would imagine that a better than 10 ton bomb that leaves a mile wide crater and shoots up a mushroom cloud that can be seen from twenty miles away would have busted up the tunnel complex pretty good. Too bad more ISIS fighters weren't at home when MOAB came knocking. Imagine what it could do in an open field combat situation.

Actually, the weapon's main threat is the blast wave, which doesn't come into effect nearly as well in the wide-open. Confined quarters -- like a tunnel complex, if you target (one of) its openings -- make a pretty good funnel for the shock wave. Not to mention the oxygen that the combustion uses up.

I don't think that they hit one of the openings, of which, no doubt, there are many.  From what I read, the thing exploded mid-air, hundreds of feet off the ground.

---

(April 14, 2017 at 2:42 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(April 14, 2017 at 2:40 pm)Jehanne Wrote: I'm just speculating.  Also, every time a bomb gets used, another needs to be manufactured to replace it.  Business contacts, anyone?

We've used ONE of the MOAB's build in '03/'04. No demand for more right now. 

There isn't always skullduggery at work. 

Except on the Internet, where it's the only explanation.

I don't know what the expiration date for one of those is; obviously, someone needs to build it, a defense contractor who needs to get paid on a regular basis.