40,000lb of bombs - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

01/10/2008 08:25:31 AM · #1

Can anyone with military experience tell me if it's really possible to 'precision' drop 40,000lb of bombs over ten minutes?

US launches massive Iraq air raid

banmorn

Nikon D750

01/10/2008 08:44:08 AM · #2

That's a little more than 2 MOAB's , so I would guess yes. Course, I don't really know.

01/10/2008 09:01:33 AM · #3

Originally posted by banmorn:

That's a little more than 2 MOAB's , so I would guess yes. Course, I don't really know.

My issue is the way this is being reported. Are we expected to believe that this is a 'precision' strike designed to limit collateral damage when one MOAB (from your link) "can kill people within several hundred metres of the point of detonation, and cause lung damage and other injuries over an even wider area."

Why not just tell us they dropped 40,000lbs of bombs onto 'terrorists' and leave it at that. Instead of making us out to be total saps by telling us how precise it was?

01/10/2008 09:27:50 AM · #4

Considering that a single B-1B bomber has a payload of 75,000lb and that the strike was carried out by 2 B1's and 4 F16's, I'd say it's really quite possible.

It's highly doubtful that the MOAB was part of this strike. It's really a specialized weapon, used for other things.

What's more likely is that the 40,000lb of bombs consisted of smart (i.e. precision) bombs 250lb, 500lb and 1000lb in size. These bombs "fly" themselves to their intended target. They are precise. If the Air Force wants to drop a bomb down a chimney, they can do it from 50,000 ft.

01/10/2008 09:34:32 AM · #5

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Yes. According to this report; "A 10-minute blitz saw 40,000 pounds (18,000 kilograms) of explosives unleashed on 40 Al-Qaeda targets in Arab Jabour village on the southern outskirts of Baghdad, a military statement said"

Which works out at 40 1000lb bombs precision dropped on the village.

01/10/2008 09:37:59 AM · #6

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Considering that a single B-1B bomber has a payload of 75,000lb and that the strike was carried out by 2 B1's and 4 F16's, I'd say it's really quite possible.

It's highly doubtful that the MOAB was part of this strike. It's really a specialized weapon, used for other things.

What's more likely is that the 40,000lb of bombs consisted of smart (i.e. precision) bombs 250lb, 500lb and 1000lb in size. These bombs "fly" themselves to their intended target. They are precise. If the Air Force wants to drop a bomb down a chimney, they can do it from 50,000 ft.

Yes. According to this report; "A 10-minute blitz saw 40,000 pounds (18,000 kilograms) of explosives unleashed on 40 Al-Qaeda targets in Arab Jabour village on the southern outskirts of Baghdad, a military statement said"

Which works out at 40 1000lb bombs precision dropped on the village.

Not exactly. What it means is that there were 40 targets in the village and they hit those targets with bombs. That does not equate to simply dumping 40,000 lb of bombs willy-nilly on some village.

01/10/2008 09:43:21 AM · #7

Originally posted by jhonan:

Which works out at 40 1000lb bombs precision dropped on the village.

Works out to...? The article you linked specifies exactly 38 bombs and more than 40 targets. That's less than 7 guided bombs per plane in 10 minutes. It's not only possible, but probably routine with static targets that can be "pre-programmed" into guidance systems.

Message edited by author 2008-01-10 09:43:40.

01/10/2008 09:44:46 AM · #8

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by jhonan:
Which works out at 40 1000lb bombs precision dropped on the village.

Not exactly. What it means is that there were 40 targets in the village and they hit those targets with bombs. That does not equate to simply dumping 40,000 lb of bombs willy-nilly on some village.

They didn't claim that they hit all their targets. They said there were 40 targets, but precision bombs are not 100% precise. And I did say the bombs were 'precision dropped', and not gravity bombs. If they had been gravity bombs then the attack would have been defined as carpet bombing.

However, if you take the effects of bombs which went off target combined with the blast of 1000lbs of explosives from one building multiplied by forty concentrated into an area the size of a village the attack would have resulted in some amount of 'collateral damage'. Unless they made sure to move all the non-terrorists out of the village beforehand.

01/10/2008 09:46:47 AM · #9

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by jhonan:
Which works out at 40 1000lb bombs precision dropped on the village.

Works out to...? The article you linked specifies exactly 38 bombs and more than 40 targets. That's less than 7 guided bombs per plane in 10 minutes. It's not only possible, but probably routine with static targets that can be "pre-programmed" into guidance systems.

Dropping 40,000lbs of bombs onto an Iraqi village is routine?

01/10/2008 09:51:55 AM · #10

Originally posted by jhonan:

Dropping 40,000lbs of bombs onto an Iraqi village is routine?

Your question was whether it's possible to drop 40,000 pounds of precision bombs in 10 minutes. I'm simply pointing out that there's nothing "impossible" about dropping 0.6 bombs per minute.

01/10/2008 09:51:58 AM · #11

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by jhonan:
Which works out at 40 1000lb bombs precision dropped on the village.

Not exactly. What it means is that there were 40 targets in the village and they hit those targets with bombs. That does not equate to simply dumping 40,000 lb of bombs willy-nilly on some village.

They didn't claim that they hit all their targets. They said there were 40 targets, but precision bombs are not 100% precise. And I did say the bombs were 'precision dropped', and not gravity bombs. If they had been gravity bombs then the attack would have been defined as carpet bombing.

However, if you take the effects of bombs which went off target combined with the blast of 1000lbs of explosives from one building multiplied by forty concentrated into an area the size of a village the attack would have resulted in some amount of 'collateral damage'. Unless they made sure to move all the non-terrorists out of the village beforehand.

How do you know the size of the "village"?

01/10/2008 10:00:25 AM · #12

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

How do you know the size of the "village"?

We only know what the media are reporting to us. Which doesn't amount to much.

If you're happy believing the US military report about their precision attack taking out some terrorists, and that their compassionate strategy of reducing collateral damage has worked yet again. Then that's fine.

Personally, I don't believe that. I believe that this is yet another example of the type of propaganda that we're *expected* to believe. The media just push the limits a bit more each time, and the more we accept, then the more they push the limits. What next... 80,000lbs of explosives? A couple of MOABs thrown into the mix perhaps? But no doubt this news report will disappear along with the rest of them when Hillary takes over the headlines again.

01/10/2008 10:07:31 AM · #13

Originally posted by jhonan:

...if you take the effects of bombs which went off target combined with the blast of 1000lbs of explosives from one building multiplied by forty concentrated into an area the size of a village the attack would have resulted in some amount of 'collateral damage'.

You don't know that ANY bombs went off target, but hitting 40+ targets with 38 bombs pretty much assures that peripheral effects had to be taken into account. For all you know, 20 of the targets could have been reinforced structures in a single compound on the outskirts of the village.

Message edited by author 2008-01-10 10:14:09.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

01/10/2008 10:10:14 AM · #14

As an aside, the suicide bombers inflicting their particular brand of destruction in Baghdad aim for as much collateral damage as possible.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

01/10/2008 10:19:44 AM · #15

I can't figure out what you're upset at:

The US has dropped bombs
or
The Government said they tried not to hit innocent people
or
The media reports what the government says
or
Hillary Clinton gets too much media time

01/10/2008 10:22:13 AM · #16

Originally posted by hopper:

The Government said they tried not to hit innocent people
or
The media reports what the government says

B and C

hyperfocal

Nikon D7000

Nikon MF 105mm f/2.5 AIS

01/10/2008 10:23:12 AM · #17

Just because the "specs" say munitions are that precise doesn't mean that its so. After all the defense industry only gets $.69 of every American income-tax dollar, so they have to cut corners in manufacturing just to make ends meet. Seriously, there is much evidence that the weapons arenâ��t nearly as precise as touted/reported.

I highly recommend the Sundance Grand Jury Prize winning documentary Why We Fight. Not some ultra left-wing documentary, but an honest appraisal of the US defense industry. It is even uses right-wing wing nuts like Richard Perle and John McCain as primary sources.

01/10/2008 10:24:59 AM · #18

Originally posted by Melethia:

As an aside, the suicide bombers inflicting their particular brand of destruction in Baghdad aim for as much collateral damage as possible.

In most reports of suicide attacks that I've read they do have a political or military target in mind. But you're right, they also inflict terrible collateral damage. I wouldn't say that's their *aim* though. Otherwise what's the point of traversing through checkpoints to get to the other side of the city when they can just blow themselves up in their local town square?

01/10/2008 10:39:59 AM · #19

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
How do you know the size of the "village"?

We only know what the media are reporting to us. Which doesn't amount to much.

If you're happy believing the US military report about their precision attack taking out some terrorists, and that their compassionate strategy of reducing collateral damage has worked yet again. Then that's fine.

Personally, I don't believe that. I believe that this is yet another example of the type of propaganda that we're *expected* to believe. The media just push the limits a bit more each time, and the more we accept, then the more they push the limits. What next... 80,000lbs of explosives? A couple of MOABs thrown into the mix perhaps? But no doubt this news report will disappear along with the rest of them when Hillary takes over the headlines again.

Arab Jabour is reported elsewhere as a "Sunni district" and not a "village".

You can take any story off into some wild, conspiracy-theorist extreme evidence of great media bias in favor of the US military industrial juggernaut steamrolling the poor, hungry and unwashed. That doesn't make you right. If you're so concerned, why aren't you there, seeing for yourself?

01/10/2008 10:40:50 AM · #20

Originally posted by jhonan:

More often, they do just that.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

01/10/2008 10:44:37 AM · #21

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by Melethia:
As an aside, the suicide bombers inflicting their particular brand of destruction in Baghdad aim for as much collateral damage as possible.

In most reports of suicide attacks that I've read they do have a political or military target in mind. But you're right, they also inflict terrible collateral damage. I wouldn't say that's their *aim* though. Otherwise what's the point of traversing through checkpoints to get to the other side of the city when they can just blow themselves up in their local town square?

I'm thinking that walking into a bustling marketplace where people are buying goods for everyday life and blowing yourself up is not giving much thought to "innocent" lives. If you're not part of the insurgency, you're the opposition. It's a very different mindset.

01/10/2008 10:46:26 AM · #22

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

You can take any story off into some wild, conspiracy-theorist extreme evidence of great media bias in favor of the US military industrial juggernaut steamrolling the poor, hungry and unwashed. That doesn't make you right. If you're so concerned, why aren't you there, seeing for yourself?

Because the thing I'm concerned with is the way this is reported, and the apparent way people believe everything that the media feeds to them without question. When to me there are some highly doubtful claims in this report.

Look, if the US military strategy in the middle-east was keeping down the price of oil and helping keep the economy afloat then it'd be possible to stomach the moral implications of what's happening in Iraq. Plus, the price of oil and the strength of the US economy are both things that affect me personally. What's the point in me getting stressed about some dead Iraqis? As you correctly pointed out, if I was concerned about it then the only thing I could do is go over there for myself.

But, with the direction the economy and oil prices have been heading, I think it's quite reasonable that questions should be raised about US strategy.

01/10/2008 10:47:08 AM · #23

It seems to me that accepting media reports that the military tried to limit collateral damage and automatically assuming that they're lying are close cousins. Even if a few precision guided bombs missed their intended targets (which we don't know), that still represents a much better attempt to limit collateral damage than 40 unguided bombs. If the result prevents a dozen suicide bombers from blowing themselves up in crowded Baghdad markets (which are neither political nor military targets), then I'd consider that a net positive.

01/10/2008 10:49:56 AM · #24

Originally posted by Melethia:

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by Melethia:
As an aside, the suicide bombers inflicting their particular brand of destruction in Baghdad aim for as much collateral damage as possible.

In most reports of suicide attacks that I've read they do have a political or military target in mind. But you're right, they also inflict terrible collateral damage. I wouldn't say that's their *aim* though. Otherwise what's the point of traversing through checkpoints to get to the other side of the city when they can just blow themselves up in their local town square?

I'm thinking that walking into a bustling marketplace where people are buying goods for everyday life and blowing yourself up is not giving much thought to "innocent" lives. If you're not part of the insurgency, you're the opposition. It's a very different mindset.

A Sunni suicide bomber is not going to walk into his local Sunni marketplace and blow himself up. He'll go to a Shia area, and vice versa. Unless I'm really mistaken about the motives of suicide bombers. I'm sure it's not really as simple as "blow myself up and kill as many innocents as possible regardless of their religious, political, or military status"