UK debuts bunker buster bombs against the Islamic State

[Peter1469]

UK debuts bunker buster bombs against the Islamic State

The UK is using penetrator bombs against ISIL now. They have had a lot of time to dig in. So the West gets to introduce our special bombs.

I wonder how they will like them.

The UK Royal Air Force (RAF) has used the largest bomb in its inventory for the first time against the Islamic State, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) announced in its latest operational update released on 26 April.On 21 April, Panavia Tornado GR4 combat aircraft operating out of RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus dropped a pair of the 'bunker buster' 2,000 lb Enhanced Paveway III (EPW III) precision-guided munitions (PGMs) onto Islamic State facilities in Iraq, hitting the targets.


"The Tornados flew as part of a coalition airstrike on a large complex of tunnels and bunkers dug into terraced hillsides above the Euphrates in western Iraq, successfully scoring direct hits with a pair of EPW IIIs on two entrances to the bunker network," the MoD said.


The EPW III is designed for use against aircraft shelters, bridges, and military command centres in all weather conditions, and was borne out of lessons learned during the Kosovo campaign in 1999 when standard Paveway II and III PGMs were severely hampered by bad weather, and also by smoke around targets and on the battlefield. The Enhanced Paveway III was cleared for RAF service in 2002, with about 2,000 bombs believed to have been delivered to the MoD.

[Beevee]

Only as long as Trump decides to continue delivery. And when he doesn't, because the remaining NATO countries won't increase their contributions while the US retains military command, ISIL will claim another victory which Republicans will claim to be false.

[Peter1469]

Only as long as Trump decides to continue delivery. And when he doesn't, because the remaining NATO countries won't increase their contributions while the US retains military command, ISIL will claim another victory which Republicans will claim to be false.

I don't see the issue. If NATO nations are not interested in the alliance why prop it up? The US can enter into bilateral / multinational agreements with nations who do have a vital interest in containing the Islamic State.

NATO was started as a counter to the Warsaw Pact. That mission is over.

[Beevee]

I don't see the issue. If NATO nations are not interested in the alliance why prop it up? The US can enter into bilateral / multinational agreements with nations who do have a vital interest in containing the Islamic State.

NATO was started as a counter to the Warsaw Pact. That mission is over.

You don't really think that the US doesn't need NATO as part of the 'Keep America Safe' philosophy? Because if successive US governments thought it unnecessary, they would have pulled out years ago.

No, the US wants to be there, not especially to defend Europe, which of course is their way of not letting the American public believe they are unsafe, but to be sure that an attack on one is an attack on all and it is US policy to ensure that they don't take all the brunt of disasters, even though they participate in creating them.

Europe probably accepted that if the US was to put in the bulk of the cash, the US would have the bulk of the say. You can hardly believe that much has been achieved from systematically having American Generals in charge and making decisions that only they can give orders to US troops. It creates antipathy and if the US cash flow is reduced, you can bet your life that the US influence on actions and who controls those actions will will be placed on the back burner by the remaining NATO members.

Donald Trump may be a businessman of quality but it doesn't make him a politician, although some Republican leaders are now referring to him as such. If he sticks to the claims he has made so far, he will become a western failure, which Putin is certainly hoping for, because when the decision is to be taken that will cost maybe millions of lives, a television personality isn't the one who should be saying yes or no.

[Peter1469]

You don't really think that the US doesn't need NATO as part of the 'Keep America Safe' philosophy? Because if successive US governments thought it unnecessary, they would have pulled out years ago.

What makes you think that if NATO ceased to exit that there would be no other alliances created to replace it? Why has it lasted so long after its purpose was served? Create any government organization and try to kill it off.

No, the US wants to be there, not especially to defend Europe, which of course is their way of not letting the American public believe they are unsafe, but to be sure that an attack on one is an attack on all and it is US policy to ensure that they don't take all the brunt of disasters, even though they participate in creating them.

The US would be in Europe if NATO disappeared today. Europe would pay a lot to ensure that.

Europe probably accepted that if the US was to put in the bulk of the cash, the US would have the bulk of the say. You can hardly believe that much has been achieved from systematically having American Generals in charge and making decisions that only they can give orders to US troops. It creates antipathy and if the US cash flow is reduced, you can bet your life that the US influence on actions and who controls those actions will will be placed on the back burner by the remaining NATO members.

I believe the treaty requires member nations to spend 2% of their GDP for their military. That hardly approaches US contributions. We are talking about what member states are failing at currently as much as asking them for more.

Donald Trump may be a businessman of quality but it doesn't make him a politician, although some Republican leaders are now referring to him as such. If he sticks to the claims he has made so far, he will become a western failure, which Putin is certainly hoping for, because when the decision is to be taken that will cost maybe millions of lives, a television personality isn't the one who should be saying yes or no.

I don't know. He would have to be pretty bad to do worse than Obama. I am not too worried.

[MisterVeritis]

You don't really think that the US doesn't need NATO as part of the 'Keep America Safe' philosophy? Because if successive US governments thought it unnecessary, they would have pulled out years ago.

It is time to pay for your defense with you dollars.

We stayed in Europe after WWII because you fools set the world on fire every few dozen years. It worked.

Now it is time fo us to go away so you can have your next splendid European war.

[Beevee]

It is time to pay for your defense with you dollars.

We stayed in Europe after WWII because you fools set the world on fire every few dozen years. It worked.

Now it is time fo us to go away so you can have your next splendid European war.

Ah! The usual US propaganda shoved down gullible American throats.

[Beevee]

What makes you think that if NATO ceased to exit that there would be no other alliances created to replace it? Why has it lasted so long after its purpose was served? Create any government organization and try to kill it off.


The US would be in Europe if NATO disappeared today. Europe would pay a lot to ensure that.

I believe the treaty requires member nations to spend 2% of their GDP for their military. That hardly approaches US contributions. We are talking about what member states are failing at currently as much as asking them for more.

I don't know. He would have to be pretty bad to do worse than Obama. I am not too worried.

1.) Don't assume that Europe needs the US but the US doesn't need Europe. If that were so, you would have been gone long ago. They need each other.

2.) Relinquish command. That's what you are paying for. It's not as if US command has achieved anything. It hasn't.

3.) Europe is still there. Who could tell with Trump at the helm.

[MisterVeritis]

It is time to pay for your defense with your (Euro)dollars.

We stayed in Europe after WWII because you fools set the world on fire every few dozen years. It worked.

Now it is time for us to go away so you can have your next splendid European war.

Ah! The usual US propaganda shoved down gullible American throats.

Perhaps we shall see. The burden of your defense will fall squarely upon your nations, for a change.

Try not to screw it up.

[Peter1469]

1.) Don't assume that Europe needs the US but the US doesn't need Europe. If that were so, you would have been gone long ago. They need each other.

2.) Relinquish command. That's what you are paying for. It's not as if US command has achieved anything. It hasn't.

3.) Europe is still there. Who could tell with Trump at the helm.

How about we disband NATO. We can make strategic alliances only with nations that benefit the US.