Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Weapons of Mass Destruction: U.S. is Dropping World's Biggest Non-Nuclear bomb in Afghanistan
Common Dreams News Center ^ | November 8, 2001 | by Laura Flanders

Posted on 12/29/2001 5:51:18 PM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity

Weapons of Mass Destruction
U.S. is Dropping World's Biggest Non-Nuclear bomb in Afghanistan

by Laura Flanders

They have the destructive power of an atomic bomb, but they can barely make a dent in U.S. news coverage. I'm talking about the 15,000-pound bombs the United States is using against Afghanistan this week. The so-called Daisy Cutters, named BLU-82, are the world's biggest non-nuclear device.

In many places, the development received a 10-second mention on the evening news, five or six items down in the program lineup. Newscasters broadcast video footage of an enormous black dust cloud rising above an Afghan mountain range, accompanied by the assurances of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that the "stepped up" assaults would hasten the collapse of the Taliban regime.

AP describes the Blu-82, nicknamed "Big Blue," as being "as large as a Volkswagen beetle, but heavier." Digging for the less charming details, one finds that the bomb got its other name, "Daisy Cutter," because of the shape of the crater it leaves -- and that it has the ability to clear a 3-mile-long path. Dropped from huge transport aircraft, "Big Blue" releases a cloud of inflammable ammonium nitrate, aluminum dust, and polystyrene slurry which is then ignited by a detonator. The result is a firestorm that incinerates an area the size of five football fields, consumes oxygen, and creates a shock-wave and vacuum pressure that destroys the internal organs of anyone within range.

"As you would expect, they make a heck of a bang when they go off," General Peter Pace, vice-chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff told a press conference. "The intent is to kill people."

The United States has used at least two of these "Big Blues" so far. David Williams described one attack from northern Afghanistan, where he is reporting for the Daily Mail of London.

"The sound and impact was unmistakably different ... Each of the previous explosions -- and there had been more than 100 -- had been similar in sight and sound," wrote Williams.

"The sound split the air. It was like a thunder clap directly overhead at the height of a ferocious storm. I could see the massive oily black cloud of the explosion as it rolled across the hillside, a mixture of thick smoke, chunks of earth and debris."

"Big Blue" was used in Vietnam, to create instant helicopter landing pads in jungle areas. It was employed in the Gulf War, to detonate minefields, and more controversially, to terrorize Iraqi troops. From the ground, the columns of dust and smoke that the bombs produce are indistinguishable from mushroom clouds. In Iraq, some British patrols reported thinking they were in a nuclear war. This reporter saw U.S. Gulf veterans cry as they recalled watching, from miles away, the deadly impact.

While George W. Bush lectures the world about Osama bin Laden's lust for nuclear weapons, U.S. forces are employing weapons that, while not banned by international treaty, come as close to nukes as one can get without smashing atoms.

The Daisy Cutter attacks come less than a week after the United States crippled Afghanistan's biggest hydroelectric complex. Afghan Education Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi said seven U.S. raids last Wednesday and Thursday severely damaged the Kajaki hydroelectric complex in southern Helmand province, knocking out the power supplies of Kandahar and Lashkarga. The report was corroborated by refugees interviewed by Agence France Press (AFP, 11/01/01)

"So far water has not started gushing out of the dam but any further bombing will destroy (it)," Minister Muttaqi told DAWN, Pakistan's English language paper, last week. "It may cause widespread flooding, putting at risk the lives of thousands of people."

According to DAWN, Kajaki, 90 kilometers northwest of Kandahar, contains 2.7 billion cubic meters of water and irrigates land farmed by 75,000 families in a desert area.

In their search -- ostensibly -- for Osama Bin Laden and those who facilitated the criminal attack on the United States on September 11, wave after wave of U.S. bombers, including giant B-52s, are carpet bombing frontlines in northern Afghanistan. In another new development this week, U.S. forces are also using 5,000 pound GBU-28 "Deep Throat" bunker-busters, which burrow through as much as 20 feet of rock before exploding underground.

The Geneva Protocol is not unclear. You don't have to be in Afghanistan. You can read it on the Web.

Protocol 1, Article 51.2. states: "The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited."

Article 57: "Works or installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dikes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. "

Article 51 explicitly outlaws carpet or area bombing tactics: "Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated."

Article 55: "Care shall be taken in warfare to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage."

The press talked for weeks about whether it was acceptable for U.S. forces to violate the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Is it unreasonable to expect at least equal attention to the question of whether U.S. assaults are violating international law?

Laura Flanders is a journalist and broadcaster, host of Working Assets Radio heard Mon-Friday on KALW, 91.7 FM in the Bay Area, and author of "Real Majority, Media Minority: The Cost of Sidelining Women in Reporting" Her Spin Doctor Laura columns appear daily on WorkingForChange. You can contact her at laura@lauraflanders.com.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 next last
This article was linked from Albalaugh Home Page (some arab rag) at http://www.albalagh.net/. Apparently the American liberals are about as keen on the BLU-82 "Daisycutter" as the muslim world. They're trying, and failing miserably, to compare our use of the BLU-82 to the use of nuclear weapons. The author also wants to slip it to the reader that we are violating international law, although she gutlessly phrases it in the form of a question (a la Jeopardy) so that she is not actually committing to what she is implying.

Sorry if this has been posted. I did a search on the title and several keywords and didn't find anything on FR.

1 posted on 12/29/2001 5:51:19 PM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
This is another example of people "making up facts" to support their argument. First, she says the bomb will clear an area 3 miles long and then states it will incinerate area equal to five football fields.
2 posted on 12/29/2001 5:55:26 PM PST by saminfl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: saminfl
Well, if you measure it in a real narrow length, it'll clear an area 3 miles long. But as far as the weapon having "the destructive power of an atomic bomb," it's not even a significant fraction of the power of the weapons used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
3 posted on 12/29/2001 5:59:38 PM PST by Tennessee_Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
Good, this narrows down when the 2 daisy cutters were dropped. Bin Laden mentioned that only 2 were dropped, since this article was originally written November 8th all we have to find out is when the other 3 were dropped and we have the time line for when the bin Laden tape was made.
4 posted on 12/29/2001 6:02:25 PM PST by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
"...Keywords: LIBERALS AND MUSLIMS HATE THE BLU-82 DAISYCUTTER..."

What a shame it is that the liberals don't hate it for precisely the same reason that the moslems do...

5 posted on 12/29/2001 6:03:41 PM PST by DWSUWF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
My only response to complaints about our choices of weapons is: "and let that be a lesson to ya".

Honestly -- people want to tweak our ass or bloody our nose but we should only respond humanely? Here's the lesson: leave us the heck alone.

6 posted on 12/29/2001 6:04:00 PM PST by Migraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee_Bob;saminfl
Yep. It's my understanding that the daisycutter has a blast radius of 600 yards. Comparing this to nuclear weapons is ridiculous. It's like comparing a peashooter to your .44 magnum.
7 posted on 12/29/2001 6:05:02 PM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DWSUWF
What a shame it is that the liberals don't hate it for precisely the same reason that the moslems do...

Funny, I was thinking the same thing.

8 posted on 12/29/2001 6:06:32 PM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
The REAL QUESTION about the DAISY-CUTTERS is...

Why are they so small? Shouldn't we have BIGGER ONES?

If we can make a VW size one, how about a Greyhound size one?

9 posted on 12/29/2001 6:07:54 PM PST by Delta-Boudreaux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delta-Boudreaux
Word around the campfire is that a 30,000 pound one is being developed. I don't know how feasible that even is. There's weight and size constraints for the planes that carry them.
10 posted on 12/29/2001 6:09:39 PM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
The Daisy Cutter carries enough punch to produce results. Did you see how sallow Osama Bin Laden looked in that video? A couple of yards closer and all he'd be is dust in the Afghan wind. He hasn't seen nothin' yet and just wait til we deploy those thermobaric bombs. He'll become one with the cave walls in the next round.
12 posted on 12/29/2001 6:13:09 PM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
Sounds Cooool to me... Actually HOT, REAL HOT, HOT, HOT, HOT. They ought to name it "Fires of Hell, the Preview"
13 posted on 12/29/2001 6:15:39 PM PST by Delta-Boudreaux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
They have the destructive power of an atomic bomb... the 15,000-pound bombs

Well, a ton is 2000 lbs, so these babies weigh 7.5 tons, let's say 8 tons.

The bomb dropped on Hiroshima, a weakling compared to today's babies, was 15,000 tons. Or about 1875 times more powerful than a daisy-cutter.

Of course one of today's megaton devices would be 125,000 times more powerful than a daisy-cutter. But why quibble, ehy?

14 posted on 12/29/2001 6:17:28 PM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
The Geneva Protocol is not unclear. You don't have to be in Afghanistan. You can read it on the Web.

This is news to me. Is Taliban comlying with these protocols?

15 posted on 12/29/2001 6:17:59 PM PST by BrooklynGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
I sent her an e-mail in reply to her screed. I don't expect to hear anything back, but if I do, I'll let y'all know.
16 posted on 12/29/2001 6:18:00 PM PST by Tennessee_Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
"It was employed in the Gulf War, to detonate minefields, and more controversially, to terrorize Iraqi troops."

Yeah! And WHEN we start kicking Iraqi butts again, these Weapons might wind up SAVING Thousand of them. Remember - these are the same Troops that tried to surrender to a Remote Controled Plane!!!

17 posted on 12/29/2001 6:18:19 PM PST by Dacus943
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: saminfl
This is another example of people "making up facts" to support their argument. First, she says the bomb will clear an area 3 miles long and then states it will incinerate area equal to five football fields.

I heard a great quote on C-SPAN this morning. After the guest was bombarded with a liberal's tirade about how the world's problems were the fault of the CIA, American Business, and all the other perceived bugaboos of the anti-American left, the guy's first response was that "everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but they are NOT entitled to their own facts."

He then proceeded to blow this Marxist's rant out of the water with TRUTH!

18 posted on 12/29/2001 6:19:17 PM PST by Morgan's Raider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Delta-Boudreaux
I've been trying to find some information I saw a while back. Apparently, there was a larger conventional weapon, around 25,000 pounds, built for the B-36 Peacemaker.
19 posted on 12/29/2001 6:19:23 PM PST by Tennessee_Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
It always cracks me up when simpletons like this Laura Flanders cite the Geneva Protocol, LOL. They always forget to cite the part about the prohibition against hijacking civilian airliners and crashing them into skyscrapers. See, these rules only apply to America. Flanders is just another "blame America first" liberal mouse. Forget her - she's totally irrelevant.
20 posted on 12/29/2001 6:19:37 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson