What is the essential difference between a truck bomb and a bomb dropped from an F16?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

Why does the delivery method make any difference?

This is a serious question, I'd really like to know the answer.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

1. Another question no one wants to anwer..

What a surprise..

[DavidDvorkin]

2. The first is cowardly, while the second is noble

Apparently.

Why some people see it that way is a different question.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

4. Thanks..

At least you tried..

[superkia]

3. Are you worrying about a missing nuke over there?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

5. ??????????????????????????????

[superkia]

9. Remember there were supposed to have been 6 nukes and 5 showed up?

I thought you were trying to see if there was a way to tell the difference in the damage caused by different delivery methods, in case the mystery 6th one showed up within our borders. I guess I turned left when you were going right.

[AuntPatsy]

6. Bravery I guess or stupidity, which ever you prefer is the one that drives

the truck then feels braver somehow then someone who can fly in and simply drop a bomb without the same fear of death the truck bomber will surely face.


Adding I find neither noble.

[Ghost in the Machine]

7. Trucks can't fly?

:shrug:

What about a truck bomb dropped from a C130?

[Rage for Order]

8. Where they're aimed, I suppose

If one wants to resist an occupation rather than slaughter civilians, it would make more sense to use your truck bombs on the occupying force and their bases rather than driving them into a marketplace where people are simply trying to buy the ingredients for that evening's dinner.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

13. You do realize I hope

That bombs dropped from F16's kill civilians too.

And quite often they kill only civilians..

[Rage for Order]

14. Of course

Dead is dead. I do believe intent makes a difference though. I doubt there have been many, if any, US bombing runs with the express purpose of killing as many civilians as possible. That said, every death in Iraq is a tragedy because we shouldn't be there in the first place.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

16. Ever heard of Dresden?

[Rage for Order]

18. No, who is that?

But seriously, different time, different circumstances, and not an F-16 to be found. I assumed your post was in reference to the current conflict in Iraq.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

20. How was the circumstance different?

I'm really stupid, please explain..

[Rage for Order]

21. Maybe another time

I don't want to have this thread turn into yet another WW2 flamefest. Someone will start a new thread soon enough to ask if the US was justified in dropping the A bomb on Japan, and at some point in that thread both Dresden and the fire bombing of Tokyo will be discussed at length.

You asked about the difference between a bomb from an F-16 and a truck bomb. I stated my opinion on the matter. And for the record, I don't think you're really stupid. :)

[The Vinyl Ripper]

23. In other words...

You can't think of a difference.

[Rage for Order]

24. Between the bombs? No, I can't.

They're both designed to explode with the maximum possible force and destroy whatever they hit.



clarity edit

[The Vinyl Ripper]

25. Sophistry will get you nowhere with me n/t

[Phrogman]

10. One is cheap and easy to build and the other is......

not economically sustainable.

Ask the USSR.

[BlooInBloo]

11. The driver typically has a personal interest in the outcome that the pilot typically doesn't?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

28. Hmmm...

Another very good point..

[originalpckelly]

12. Is the F-16 aiming for civilians?

That might help me answer the question.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

26. Are truck bombs *always* aimed at civilians..

Think carefully before you answer..

[ronnie624]

42. The leaders who launched the attacks

do not care about civilians, unless 'concern' offers a political advantage of some sort. At other times, 'concern' over the deaths soldiers may offer an advantage, so your question is irrelevant.

Anyway, in the last sixty years, US bombers have killed and maimed more civilians, by an order of magnitude, than all of the truck bombs combined, in all of history.

[Hoof Hearted]

15. Lockheed Martin doesn't make any profit on the truck bomb, so it's bad.

No, on second thought, they do.

Let me rephrase.

Lockheed Martin/Bush Co./Cheney Inc./G.E./Blackwater/Haliburton need, absolutely NEED evil truck bombs so they can make patriotic good bombs, and turn a profit. Making it into Forbes.com's top 400 richest Americans is hard work.

[TahitiNut]

17. It's easier to kill people without seeing the mangled bodies of men, women and children.

It's called "stand-off weaponry" and has a long history - with two major objectives: (1) "sanitizing" the act of committing mass homicide and avoiding that nuisance called 'conscience,' and (2) posing less risk of anything worse than carpal tunnel in being a strutting "warrior." (It's much of why the Air Farce got sneers in Nam.)

Some day I'll try to compose a post to explore the psyche of DU parents who oppose having their children join the military. I have to wonder why I never hear the concern that they'd be desensitized to killing - and that would compromise their basic humanity. All I ever hear is "don't send my child to be killed!" The far more common impact is the indoctrination regarding being a killer. And people call this a 'progressive' community? Riiight.

Well, have them join the Air Farce, parents. That way they stand a far less chance of being killed - but get to participate in wholesale killing. What a great solution.

:puke:

Disclaimer: I attended the USCGA for two years - planning on being a career officer in the USCG - untilI found out what the military was all about. I then was drafted and sent to Viet Nam, in the Army. I confirmed that I was right.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

27. Excellent point..

Thank you

[uppityperson]

33. That is what I was going to say. It is killing at a distance vs up close.

I wish fighting would go back to up close and personal. If you are going to fight, make it up close and personal. Yes I know that even distance killing can be very tough on those dropping the bombs, but if I were queen of the universe, well we wouldn't have wars to start with, but I'd back up technology.

I'm a parent and feel 1 of the really bad things is that the military takes young people who (theoretically) have been taught to not fight, to share, etc, and puts them into horrendous situations (war is hell) and they lose their humanity, become desensitized to the killing and death and lose parts of their humaneness. It's not just killing people or worrying about my kid being killed, it is all the psychological mind fucking that he would get. I fear having those in Iraq/Afghanistan returning without good backup for them because of the psychological stuff. But then I'm uppity.

[TahitiNut]

37. David slew Goliath with a "stand-off" weapon.

From the sling, to bows and arrows, to the catapult and trebuchet, to ICBMs and the B-52, mankind has been constantly searching for ways to kill other people without getting close.

[flamin lib]

43. This post deserves it's own thread. nt

[TahitiNut]

45. Thanks. I find it hard to work up the interest to start any threads ...

... considering the flood of garbage threads we get. It seems that knee-jerk topics are the only ones that get attention.

[Liberal In Texas]

19. The delivery method makes little difference when you see the

results on the ground.

People are still dead.

Helicopters and F-18s are just really more efficient.

Go listen to Bruce Cockburn.

[Rex]

22. The method of delivery.

That is it. Intentions be dammed; death is death is death.

[bemildred]

29. The F16 is much worse for global warming. nt

[The Vinyl Ripper]

30. Hmmm...

Environmentally friendly bombs.

I like it..

[bemildred]

34. Here, have a cookie:

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/76140/mike_davis_on_the_history_of_the_car_bomb

[BlooInBloo]

31. You have to discount the mean CO2 that *won't* be produced by all the people who died...

... and if you throw in the average ecological damage a person produces, it's perfectly conceivable that the f16 *lessened* global warming.


(Obviously this is not to be taken as a general endorsement of using an f16 for bombing (which would be an odd choice of plane on strictly military grounds).)

[The Vinyl Ripper]

35. People die in either case..

And bombs are dropped from F16's all the time..

[bemildred]

36. Wild speculation.

The ordinary targets of F16s use much less carbon than the pilots or the jet.

[buddysmellgood]

32. Brown people.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

39. You mean

In one case brown people are doing the killing and in the other brown people are being killed?

Sounds about right..

[Bluerthanblue]

38. the same as "one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist"- perspective

is the only real difference.

We cloak the one that represents our perspective in nobleness and denounce the other as barbaric, but the bodies that result from both, are needless.

i'm not being smug- i sincerly mean this in answer to your important question.

peace-
blu

[DaveJ]

40. According to BushCo there is no difference

So if a small party resists against a world power they will get crushed without mercy. In answer to your question, the only difference is in who delivers them.

[Prophet 451]

41. Destructive power?

Truck bombs are usually built and delivered by amateurs and therefore, be less destructive than those built and dropped by professionals.

[eppur_se_muova]

44. Profit margin? nt

[JanMichael]

46. Capacity to deal out death. Who has the planes?

Certainly not most of those fighting Imperial aggression and occupation.

There's a big difference.

[Orsino]

47. One hides like an illegal immigrant, the other soars like an eagle. n/t

[LeftHander]

48. The plane is reuseable....nt

[ProfessorGAC]

49. I Would Guess The Target Would Be Different

But, in terms of effect i can't see any difference. Blown up is blown up.
The Professor