Article

2010-10-13 Afghanistan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by 2010-10-13 00:00|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top
File under: Taliban

#1 Because the US is part of NATO, one can say that NATO has B-52 Stratofortresses. And I agree that Arclight strikes would put the fear of Allah into those Taliban fighters that were far enough away to survive the strike.

A B-52H can carry a conventional bomb load of 70,000 lbs. A B-1B Lancer can carry a 134,000 lbs bomb load (75,000 lbs of internal payload plus 59,000 lb on 6 external hardpoints).

You would either need fewer B-1Bs or, better yet, the arclight would be even more spectacular.

Posted by Mike Ramsey 2010-10-13 05:24|| 2010-10-13 05:24|| Front Page Top

#2 Why not have a competition?

Posted by gorb 2010-10-13 10:13|| 2010-10-13 10:13|| Front Page Top

#3 Can I suggest a target?
The black rock of Satan, and multiple strikes, just wait long enough for the "Faithful" to regather and WHAMMO again, perhaps that'll qualify as a "Contest" target.
Sounds good to me(I'll watch fom a safe distance, say right here.)

Posted by Redneck Jim 2010-10-13 15:00|| 2010-10-13 15:00|| Front Page Top

#4 The B-52H wing at Barksdale AFB has a full complement of aircraft - 36. Send 12 against Rawalpindi/Islamabad, 12 against Quetta, and 12 against Peshawar. Allow the Navy and the folks in Afghanistan to provide air cover. Afterwords, call on the few survivors to surrender, or we'll start running such strikes from Quetta to Chitral DAILY until they do. I'm sure even the most diehard Taliban would be willing to surrender after having the sh$$ bombed out of him (literally) every day for two or three weeks. NATO would get an object lesson on why you still need manned bombers in the so-called "missile age", and the entire Muslim world would get an object lesson on why you don't piss off the United States. Once the Afghan/Taliban problem is solved, we can then concentrate on Al-Shabaab in Somalia and the mess in Sudan. The quiet following the destruction of those two countries should last for a couple of years, at least. During that time, we could probably come up with a replacement for the B-52 that would be both cost-effective and capable of carrying an adequate payload anywhere in the world and back. I get nervous trusting my freedom to an aircraft that's almost as old as I am...

Posted by Old Patriot 2010-10-13 17:15|| 2010-10-13 17:15|| Front Page Top

#5 Age before beauty, OP, lol!

Posted by Rhodesiafever 2010-10-13 19:31|| 2010-10-13 19:31|| Front Page Top

#6 OP...not in our lifetime. the WH would get their collective panties all bunched up.

Posted by anymouse 2010-10-13 23:54|| 2010-10-13 23:54|| Front Page Top

23:54 anymouse
23:50 anymouse
23:29 AuburnTom
23:22 trailing wife
23:00 gorb
22:49 JosephMendiola
22:48 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:43 JosephMendiola
22:41 anon1
22:36 JosephMendiola
22:34 anon1
22:31 JosephMendiola
22:19 trailing wife
22:03 JosephMendiola
20:21 bigjim-CA
20:21 Rhodesiafever
20:18 Deacon Blues
20:15 Deacon Blues
20:06 Pappy
20:04 Rhodesiafever
19:54 Rhodesiafever
19:33 Fred
19:32 Ebbang Uluque6305
19:31 Rhodesiafever