The Conservative Cave

Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: dutch508 on April 13, 2017, 01:07:57 PM

Title: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
Post by: dutch508 on April 13, 2017, 01:07:57 PM
Quote
Star Member HAB911 (1,794 posts) https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028927307

Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?

 :thatsright:

Quote
clarkrd (50 posts)
5. If someone else dropped this, we would say it's a warcrime. n/t

 :thatsright:
Title: Re: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
Post by: FiddyBeowulf on April 13, 2017, 01:12:33 PM
If someone were to weaponize this DUmmie's stupidity...
Title: Re: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
Post by: BlueStateSaint on April 13, 2017, 01:44:01 PM
The bomb evidentially underwent gender reassignment surgery, as Rush was saying that the bomb was described by the Pentagon as the "Father Of All Bombs." :-) :yahoo: :whistling:
Title: Re: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
Post by: DLR Pyro on April 13, 2017, 02:09:44 PM
Quote
Star Member HAB911 (1,794 posts) https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028927307

Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?

Depends on whether you are the target or not.
Title: Re: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
Post by: SVPete on April 13, 2017, 02:24:38 PM
Since when did DU-folk give a @#$% about definitions? Any definition that contradicts what they want to believe is therefore Racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, and Everything-Else-Phobic. By definition.
Title: Re: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
Post by: landofconfusion80 on April 13, 2017, 02:55:38 PM
Guess so.... if you happen to be living in a network of caves, speak Arabic, shoot AK 47s and have a general disgust for all things western culture

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
Post by: I_B_Perky on April 13, 2017, 04:40:31 PM
Quote
Star Member HAB911 (1,794 posts) https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028927307

Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
     
Survey says:

Quote
Weapon of mass destruction (WMD), weapon with the capacity to inflict death and destruction on such a massive scale and so indiscriminately that its very presence in the hands of a hostile power can be considered a grievous threat. Modern weapons of mass destruction are either nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons—frequently referred to collectively as NBC weapons. See nuclear weapon, chemical warfare, biological warfare.

https://www.britannica.com/technology/weapon-of-mass-destruction (https://www.britannica.com/technology/weapon-of-mass-destruction)

The answer:  No.

Took me all of 20 seconds to do that dummie.  Go back to your Russians-hacked-the-election meme cause you suck at the WMD meme.


Title: Re: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
Post by: 98ZJUSMC on April 13, 2017, 07:51:25 PM
 :thatsright:

I have to give you little faggots credit.  You push the boundaries of Mental Retardation ever outward.

Good job, Faggots.
Title: Re: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
Post by: BlueStateSaint on April 13, 2017, 09:16:59 PM
:thatsright:

I have to give you little faggots credit.  You push the boundaries of Mental Retardation ever outward.

Good job, Faggots.

I'd hazard a guess and say that most LGBTQRSUVWXYZ people would be appalled by the DUmp.
Title: Re: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
Post by: franksolich on April 13, 2017, 09:28:32 PM
I'm having trouble understanding why the primitives are so upset about Mother.

Apparently Mom has the explosive force--according to Google--of 11 tons of TNT.

Uh.....the first primitive atomic bomb back in 1945 had the explosive force of 20,000 tons of TNT.

Now, I wouldn't want Mom to be dropped on me, but still, it seems to me Mom's a tiny little firecracker compared with any nuclear bomb.

So how come the primitives seem more concerned about Mom, than they are about Communist Korea's nuclear weapons?
Title: Re: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
Post by: SVPete on April 13, 2017, 11:33:33 PM
I'm having trouble understanding why the primitives are so upset about Mother.

Apparently Mom has the explosive force--according to Google--of 11 tons of TNT.

Uh.....the first primitive atomic bomb back in 1945 had the explosive force of 20,000 tons of TNT.

Now, I wouldn't want Mom to be dropped on me, but still, it seems to me Mom's a tiny little firecracker compared with any nuclear bomb.

So how come the primitives seem more concerned about Mom, than they are about Communist Korea's nuclear weapons?

Because Trump dropped it and demonstrated Obama's ineffectiveness. Oh! And Trump dropped it.
Title: Re: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
Post by: VelvetElvis on April 14, 2017, 06:59:23 AM
Because Trump dropped it and demonstrated Obama's ineffectiveness. Oh! And Trump dropped it.

You forgot  "and Trump!!!!"
Title: Re: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
Post by: BlueStateSaint on April 14, 2017, 07:31:15 AM
Because Trump dropped it and demonstrated Obama's ineffectiveness. Oh! And Trump dropped it.

Target!

H5!
Title: Re: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
Post by: SVPete on April 14, 2017, 08:23:30 AM
You forgot  "and Trump!!!!"

Mea goofa. Lo siento.
Title: Re: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
Post by: franksolich on April 14, 2017, 08:28:24 AM
Mea goofa. Lo siento.

Also, remember that to the primitives, it doesn't matter what it is; all that counts is who did it.

Since the primitives like the fat kid and loathe the president, the fat kid could blow up the world and it wouldn't bother the primitives, whereas if President Trump blew a hole through a cheap nose-tissue, the primitives'd have a cow.
Title: Re: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
Post by: Airwolf on April 16, 2017, 09:14:50 PM
And yet all the times the military used the BLU-82 from Vietnam to Desert Storm they stayed silent over it's used and the MOAB is the weapon it replaced. Idiots.
Title: Re: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
Post by: DUmpsterDiver on April 16, 2017, 10:22:37 PM
Speaking of sublime...it was the democrat party (with their ATF) that declared a 2 liter Coke container half filled with Dry Ice (CO2) and left hanging in a tree well above casual passerby's a Destructive Device.

Sounds like it depends on what their definition of "mass" is.
Title: Re: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on April 16, 2017, 10:50:26 PM
Maximum payload of B52 with plain old dumb iron bombs:  70,000 pounds.  One MOAB: 21,000 pounds.

The MOAB isn't even close to the area destruction resulting from a single Buff loaded with 500 pounders delivering a 'Rain of steel.'  The MOAB is able to do a lot deeper and more devastating damage right on its point of impact (Or directly under it for an airburst) and so is much more effective on an extensive heavily hardened target...like a cave complex full of assholes who need to die.

Weapon of mass destruction?  GTFO.
Title: Re: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
Post by: BlueStateSaint on April 17, 2017, 05:35:35 AM
Maximum payload of B52 with plain old dumb iron bombs:  70,000 pounds.  One MOAB: 21,000 pounds.

The MOAB isn't even close to the area destruction resulting from a single Buff loaded with 500 pounders delivering a 'Rain of steel.'

And the 'Arc Light' was three BUFFs flying in close formation, dropping all of their payloads at the same time.  If you were in that 400m x 1000m (give or take) area, you died.  No question.  No matter whether you were mammal, reptile, or plant matter.
Title: Re: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
Post by: miskie on April 17, 2017, 06:05:30 AM
no DUmbass - a WMD has wide ranging effects beyond the point of impact - radiation, poisoning, etc etc.. - all a MOAB has is a whole lotta kaboom.
Title: Re: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
Post by: SVPete on April 17, 2017, 07:51:33 AM
no DUmbass - a WMD has wide ranging effects beyond the point of impact - radiation, poisoning, etc etc.. - all a MOAB has is a whole lotta kaboom.

Chernobyl and Fukushima weren't nuclear bombs, but they illustrate the fact that radiation can persist for years. There's an area off Sweden in the Baltic Sea that is off-limits for fishing, due to a sunken ship that had been loaded with mustard gas shells near the end of WW2.
Title: Re: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
Post by: DLR Pyro on April 18, 2017, 09:06:12 AM
And the 'Arc Light' was three BUFFs flying in close formation, dropping all of their payloads at the same time.  If you were in that 400m x 1000m (give or take) area, you died.  No question.  No matter whether you were mammal, reptile, or plant matter.

one of 3 ships in an Arc Light cell.  Nothing on the receiving end could survive.
(https://scontent-dft4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/905553_10206609410939815_7185400266115999917_o.jpg?oh=2dc6558afb15f932ee86901da504c0bd&oe=598B8335)
Title: Re: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on April 18, 2017, 11:40:35 AM
That's the 'Rain of Steel' I'm talkin' 'bout!

 :cheersmate:
Title: Re: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
Post by: BlueStateSaint on April 18, 2017, 11:52:23 AM
That's the 'Rain of Steel' I'm talkin' 'bout!

 :cheersmate:

Brings a tear to my eye . . . :whistling:
Title: Re: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
Post by: Airwolf on June 21, 2017, 12:39:10 PM
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/f9/e3/f0/f9e3f017afccd81685af6ada2a497602.jpg)
Thats what the ground looks like
Title: Re: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
Post by: Ralph Wiggum on June 21, 2017, 12:59:15 PM
Would liberals prefer it be called a "cis-gender" name?
Title: Re: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on June 21, 2017, 01:06:44 PM
I'm having trouble understanding why the primitives are so upset about Mother.

Apparently Mom has the explosive force--according to Google--of 11 tons of TNT.

Uh.....the first primitive atomic bomb back in 1945 had the explosive force of 20,000 tons of TNT.

Now, I wouldn't want Mom to be dropped on me, but still, it seems to me Mom's a tiny little firecracker compared with any nuclear bomb.

So how come the primitives seem more concerned about Mom, than they are about Communist Korea's nuclear weapons?

IOW, it's slightly more than the bomb load of a WW2 B24, or equivalent to roughly two RAF 'Tall Boys' aka 'Blockbusters' from the same era...and roughly half again the size of a Viet Nam War 'Daisycutter' (Which was fuzed for a slightly-above ground airburst rather than a penetrating concussive hit, so the effects are rather different).  It's big, but it's not really massively larger than various iron bombs of the past.
Title: Re: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
Post by: YupItsMe on June 21, 2017, 04:37:58 PM
I'm having trouble understanding why the primitives are so upset about Mother.

Apparently Mom has the explosive force--according to Google--of 11 tons of TNT.

Uh.....the first primitive atomic bomb back in 1945 had the explosive force of 20,000 tons of TNT.

Now, I wouldn't want Mom to be dropped on me, but still, it seems to me Mom's a tiny little firecracker compared with any nuclear bomb.

So how come the primitives seem more concerned about Mom, than they are about Communist Korea's nuclear weapons?

Because the "Good Guys" have it.