Author Topic: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?  (Read 7131 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ralph Wiggum

  • It's unpossible that I'm a
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19495
  • Reputation: +2554/-49
Re: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
« Reply #25 on: June 21, 2017, 12:59:15 PM »
Would liberals prefer it be called a "cis-gender" name?
Voted hottest "chick" at CU - My hotness transcends gender


Offline DumbAss Tanker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28493
  • Reputation: +1710/-151
Re: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
« Reply #26 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.
Go and tell the Spartans, O traveler passing by
That here, obedient to their law, we lie.

Anything worth shooting once is worth shooting at least twice.

Offline YupItsMe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
  • Reputation: +138/-6
Re: Is The MOAB a weapon of mass destruction by definition?
« Reply #27 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.