Did We Talk About the Mother of All Bombs Yet?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

from the NY Times:

March 12, 2003
Largest Conventional Bomb Dropped in a Test in Florida
By THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON, March 11 — The Air Force today successfully tested in Florida the largest conventional bomb in the American arsenal, a munition so massive that its 18,000 pounds of high explosives must be dropped from the rear of a cargo plane, officials said.

The bomb explodes a few feet above the ground, and is designed to send a devastating wave of fire and blast hundreds of yards to kill troops, flatten trees, knock over structures, collapse cave entrances and, in general, demoralize those far beyond the impact zone.

The weapon is officially called the Massive Ordnance Air Blast, but the initials have already been recast to name it the "Mother of All Bombs."

The reference to language used by Saddam Hussein during the Persian Gulf war is no accident. The new bomb, still in its test phase, could be dropped on Iraq should President Bush order the nation to war.

"There is a psychological component to all aspects of warfare," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon news briefing today.

"The goal is not to have a war," Mr. Rumsfeld said. Short of that, he added, "The goal is to have the capabilities of the coalition so clear and so obvious that there is an enormous disincentive for the Iraqi military to fight."

Of the new bomb, he said, "This is not small."

The entire weapon weighs 21,500 pounds, including a satellite guidance system intended to bring the bomb closer to its target than its predecessor, the 15,000-pound BLU-82, which fell to earth unguided.

The MOAB is carried aloft aboard an MC-130, a cargo plane flown by Air Force Special Operations Forces. The bomb rolls out the rear cargo door of the plane on a pallet, and a parachute yanks it free of the aircraft. The pallet and parachute then separate from the bomb.

A handful of the BLU-82's were used in Afghanistan to destroy caves believed to be used by forces of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, as well as to frighten any troops dug into trenches who were not immediately killed by the weapon.

The BLU-82, nicknamed the Daisy Cutter, was initially designed for use in Vietnam to flatten the jungle to create landing zones for helicopters.

Today's blast, which was reported to have sent a cloud of dirt and debris high into the air over a test range at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., was the first test of the weapon's explosive power.

Two nonexplosive tests were conducted earlier to try the bomb's launching and mechanical workings, the most recent being last Friday, said Cheryl Irwin, a Pentagon spokeswoman.

Ms. Irwin described today's test as a success, saying, "It did what it was supposed to do."

Officials said they were unaware if the name MOAB was chosen for a biblical reference. According to Genesis, Moab was born through an incestuous relationship between Lot and a daughter following the destruction of Sodom. The Book of Numbers tells how the Israelites chose the Plains of Moab as their final camp before entering the Promised Land.

― hstencil, Wednesday, 12 March 2003 16:18 (twenty-three years ago)

A bomb named after filthy sex! Strangelove comes true and we didn't even need nukes.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 16:22 (twenty-three years ago)

It wasn't a Halo Jones reference, then? :(

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 16:24 (twenty-three years ago)

I just don't understand what the point of building an 18,000 pound bomb is. I mean, aside from completely obliterating everything within its range, of course.

― hstencil, Wednesday, 12 March 2003 16:30 (twenty-three years ago)

I thought this was going to be about "Swept Away".

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 16:32 (twenty-three years ago)

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/default.asp?target=moab.htm

― Jon Williams (ex machina), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 16:36 (twenty-three years ago)

'Disincentive', for the love of Mike. What's wrong with the word 'deterrent'? 'Military intelligence' is still the best oxymoron I know.

― Liz :x (Liz :x), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 16:36 (twenty-three years ago)

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 16:38 (twenty-three years ago)

I like this bomb's name much more than the ironically named "Smart Bomb", one of which was accidentally-dropped-on-and-killed 3 US troops in Afghanistan.

But then, I don't particularly like the existance of bombs. Quite the dilemma. :D

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 16:38 (twenty-three years ago)

the name's the only good thing about it

― dyson (dyson), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 16:44 (twenty-three years ago)

Moab was the name of a now defunct for of climbers protection.

basically they seem to be trying to get conventional bombs as close to low yield nukes as possible.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 16:52 (twenty-three years ago)

basically they seem to be trying to get conventional bombs as close to low yield nukes as possible.

Weapons sort of like mass destruction, then?

― hstencil, Wednesday, 12 March 2003 16:53 (twenty-three years ago)

Shh, you're giving it away!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 16:54 (twenty-three years ago)

who will watch her children while she's overseas?
also, if she's the mother of all bombs, does that sort of imply that there are many fathers (i.e. she's a slut)

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 16:58 (twenty-three years ago)

I heard that until the test comes back, she's not sure if it's Fat Man or Little Boy.

― hstencil, Wednesday, 12 March 2003 16:58 (twenty-three years ago)

i.e. she's a slut

Dirrty bomb

― Alfie (Alfie), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 17:07 (twenty-three years ago)

I saw it on TV. It looks like a massive dick.

― Charles McCain, Wednesday, 12 March 2003 17:15 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm sure it will be used with great precision and care.

― Rockist Scientist, Wednesday, 12 March 2003 17:45 (twenty-three years ago)

why bother, you can drop this thing anywhere and it'll kill something.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 17:47 (twenty-three years ago)

"It's fuckin' large, yo!"

― Bryan (Bryan), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 17:51 (twenty-three years ago)

doesn't using a bomb like this necessarily include civilian casualties? isn't that the whole point of superpowered weapons?

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 17:57 (twenty-three years ago)

Its orange.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 18:12 (twenty-three years ago)

doesn't using a bomb like this necessarily include civilian casualties?

uh, not if you don't drop it on them (not that they won't but isn't this pretty obvious?)

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 18:49 (twenty-three years ago)

i.e. in their vicinity. This is not a 40 Megaton Hydrogen warhead.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 19:28 (twenty-three years ago)

Don't Bomb If You Are The Mother Of All Bombs!

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 19:29 (twenty-three years ago)

I think that Blur song (which I actually quite like) would have a demoralizing effect on civilians in most countries.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 19:33 (twenty-three years ago)

Another picture thread

― j.lu (j.lu), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 20:20 (twenty-three years ago)

Felix saves us all! Or kills us all, alternately.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 20:54 (twenty-three years ago)

doesn't using a bomb like this necessarily include civilian casualties?

It does when you use it in urban warfare.

uh, not if you don't drop it on them (not that they won't but isn't this pretty obvious?)
i.e. in their vicinity. This is not a 40 Megaton Hydrogen warhead.

No, but when you're talking about urban warfare this is a bizarre (and quite possibly unethical tactic). It's the same idea that lies behind a trade embargo that prevents food and medicine from entering your enemy's country. The idea IS to harm civilians, to demoralize them, to scare them shitless, and force them to turn against their own government. Not a new or unique move by any means.

― -M, Wednesday, 12 March 2003 21:16 (twenty-three years ago)

1. I like the fact that 'Thom Shanker' wrote this article, I wish he wasn't real so I could use his name in all my stories

2. Low-yield nukes are the future! see the New Scientist article on same topic, bring a bucket to puke in as your moral apprehension overcomes you

3. Liz X, that is so hilarious I am going to tell you to fuck off!

4. Perhaps you would all prefer we stick to pissy wee little bombs and pissy wee little weapons etc.; That way all wars can be humane like the ones from 200 years ago! After all muskets are completely ineffective against civilians and nobody would think to aim a six-pounder at a house.

5. Point to me the part where pentagon authorities say that this weapon is meant for urban warfare.

― Millar (Millar), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 21:27 (twenty-three years ago)

to your 4th point Tom, are all our other bombs "pissy wee little" ones? I thought they blowed stuff up real good!

― hstencil, Wednesday, 12 March 2003 21:29 (twenty-three years ago)

M, who said this bomb was going to be used in urban warfare? It will not be. It would likely be used during the first few days on the front lines in the open desert, possibly not even dropped directly on Iraqi troops.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 21:57 (twenty-three years ago)

Was Stephen Fry's book 'Moab Was My Washpot' (or something like that) about this, even a little bit?

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 22:03 (twenty-three years ago)

Millar let's have no boms or guns at all. (fucking hell I sound like a hippy)

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 22:30 (twenty-three years ago)

I wouldn't be so certain. I mean the dropping of atom bombs on cities has been known to occur in an effort to induce capitulation of other governments. (and before anyone gets all hot and bothered, no I am not saying that our brand-spanking-new "weapons of sort of like mass destruction" are the equivalent of the bomb)

But either way, you're talking about using it as a terror tactic, not to take out a weapons factory or something.

― -M, Wednesday, 12 March 2003 22:37 (twenty-three years ago)

I seriously would like somebody to point out the tactical advantage in building such a huge bomb that can only be delivered from a MC-130.

― hstencil, Wednesday, 12 March 2003 22:44 (twenty-three years ago)

well, Iraq has not been able to shoot anything down over the last decade...

and M your statement: the dropping of atom bombs on cities has been known to occur in an effort to induce capitulation of other governments makes this sound like a regular event/tactic. It is not. 2 bombs, 2 cities, one government, which had already slaughtered tens of millions across East Asia and the Pacific.

I can see this bomb dropped on city outskirts as a terror tactic, but dropped in the middle of a city would hurt cause too much negative PR.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 22:52 (twenty-three years ago)

Spencer: I was referring to prior statements made by others who seemed to assume that the bomb was going to end up being dropped over civilian population centers.

― Millar (Millar), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 23:08 (twenty-three years ago)

Tom, I wasn't referring to your post at all.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 23:15 (twenty-three years ago)

Oh yeah huh M is a completely different person isn't they ERRR DUH.

Also Ed if we do away with guns and bombs lots of people will be out of a job. There's only so much infrastructure required to make knives and spears.

― Millar (Millar), Thursday, 13 March 2003 00:27 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm guessing the MOAB is going to be pretty useful in aerial relandscaping - you've got a cave complex somewhere that you absolutely, positively need to shut down. Nukes won't help because of that pesky fallout problem.

― Chris Barrus (xibalba), Thursday, 13 March 2003 01:55 (twenty-three years ago)

actually, that is more correct than my theory

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Thursday, 13 March 2003 01:56 (twenty-three years ago)

I think it's a perverse thing to be advertising and bragging about.
(yes, it was advertised, since someone in the military had to tell the media about it)

― oops (Oops), Thursday, 13 March 2003 02:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Can we start talking about the sexual ramifications of the bomb again so I can namedrop Flipper?

― Nate Patrin (Nate Patrin), Thursday, 13 March 2003 02:01 (twenty-three years ago)

it may seem perverse to you but to the intended audience EG iraq it's more like SURRENDER NOW FUCKERS, WE HAVE THIS BITCH

― Millar (Millar), Thursday, 13 March 2003 02:04 (twenty-three years ago)

clearly it's being advertised to show American strength. Calling it the "Mother of All Bombs" is a swipe at Saddam Hussein's telling everyone before the last Gulf War that America should prepare for the "Mother of All Battles".

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Thursday, 13 March 2003 02:05 (twenty-three years ago)

The real mother of all bombs was, is, and will probably remain, The Tsar Bomba. Next to that, the US's latest toy is just a toy.

― Dave Fischer, Thursday, 13 March 2003 02:05 (twenty-three years ago)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2809593.stm

Moab's is for riding slickrock not bombing Iraq.

― David Beckhouse (David Beckhouse), Thursday, 13 March 2003 04:55 (twenty-three years ago)

http://slate.msn.com/id/2080106/

― P, Friday, 14 March 2003 03:27 (twenty-three years ago)

it may seem perverse to you but to the intended audience EG iraq it's more like SURRENDER NOW FUCKERS, WE HAVE THIS BITCH

Expected this response. Do you really think Iraq wasn't shitting in its collective boots already? (Oh...I suppose there wasn't *enough* shit in them yet)

― oops (Oops), Friday, 14 March 2003 05:12 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.