[Real Cynic No More]

This appears to be setting the stage for use of the new MOAB, which may have the destructive capacity of a tactical nuke, but without the follow-on radiation.

[mlbford2]

Time to drop the hammer and light em' up.

[kinghorse]

bob marley wrote a lot of songs about this. of course his songs where merely adaptations of what he read from his Bible.

Chant down Babylon.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

I doubt the MOAB has the destructive capacity of any kind of nuke weapon. Tactical nukes are rated in terms of kiloton yields, right? What's a MOAB rated at? A fraction of a kiloton is my bet.

[Renatus]

Does anyone know how many MOABS we might have in our arsenal. Are they one the assembly line? Can they be put
together quickly?

[CCWoody]

This appears to be setting the stage for use of the new MOAB, which may have the destructive capacity of a tactical nuke, but without the follow-on radiation.

I would tend to be in agreement with you that a proportional response to the use of Chemical Weapons on us would be the use of either the BLU-82 or the MOAB by us. I also believe that a proportional response could be the use of nuclear artillery and other tactical devices. I tend to think that the nukes would be the lesser option as our stated goal is Iraqi liberation and not Iraqi contamination.

And these Fuel Air Bombs make nice A-bomb looking mushroom clouds to strike terror in the heart of the enemy.

I must point out though, that the BLU-82 and the MOAB as well doesn't have the kill capabilities that have been advertised here on FR. How do I know this. Well, I happen to have as a fellow engineer of mine, a retired Army Engineer Colonel who dealt with the use of this kind of weapon to clear minefields. Not that I would want to be caught in the kill radius, mind you. I just happen to know that it really isn't as big as you might think.

I also find the lead article suspect.

Woody.